From iza at anr.org Tue Feb 14 04:42:25 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:42:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] my remarks prepared now Message-ID: This is my draft, I plan to read this not representing IGC, but still . In 10 min or so... any immediate comment welcome, izumi A comment from civil society participants at the IGF Open Consultation 14 Febtruaru2012 I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, or CS IGC, and also a civil society member of the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements. This is not to represent the whole IGC formaly, but still I would like to make the following remarks for the record as a member of the civil society, long particiapted in WSIS I, WGIG WSIS II, all IGFs and CSTD meetings for IGF. First, we are encouraged to see many of our friends in our room and also those who could not physically present here but participating remotely who all have strong interest to continue our work, for organizing the second round of the IGF. As you all know, Civil Society is a very important component of the multi-stakeholder framework and operation of IGF. This means that we like to work with you, government, private sector, techincal and academic community, among others, all stakeholders together. First and foremost, we would like to keep this spriti high, and also like to see enhanced multi-stakeholder participation for the IGF 2.0 We are also very much in favor of enhancing the participation from the developing parts of the world in IGF, its consultation meetings like today, MAG, and other important areas. In this regard, we are very concerend that the current economic situation is putting some shades into the financial parts of the IGF organization. We feel very strongly that funding support is very much needed to make IGF further success. We, Civil Society, are one of the least resourceful stakeholders and therefore we always seek for funding support, especially for the MAG and CSTD works, and also for the main IGF meetings. Unfortunately, with the lack of funding support, many civils society colleagues including MAG members could not make it this time. Likewise, we have learned that our CSTD Working Group members will not be able to physically attend the meeting next week again due to lack of funding. Civil society and other groups with limited resources, such as associations or networks of small businesses, need support to participate in Internet Governance processes. Such support has been inconsistent – not just in the case of the working group, but also in the case of other important fora such as MAG meetings. This consistently hampers full multistakeholder participation and restricts the overall evolution - and results - of these processes. If the rules and mechanisms of participation in IG processes privileges groups that already have power and resources this 'imbalance' will be reflected in the outcomes of these processes. We know we are not alone, however. People from the least developing countries, small island nations, innovative but small SMEs, some academics and even governments are often suffering from lack of propser funding, and therefore, we don’t see many of these people in this room or other IGF related meetings. We acknolwdge the various kind donors who had provided great financial and in-kind support for the civil society participation, as well as developing country pariticipation, and hope to work together with you again. Deepening democracy and multistakeholder participation in governance requires the inclusion of groups and people who have a stake in the issues under discussion but who are frequently excluded or marginalized. It is not enough to grant the right to participate to these stakeholders; provisions must be made to ensure that they can exercise this right in full. Ensuring multistakeholder participation in the context of the WSIS principles and the Tunis Agenda is not just about adhering to commitments which many governments agreed to. The ultimate goal is to generate better and more sustainable policy outcomes that reflect the diversity of voices, ideas, concerns and needs of all relevant stakeholders. We will work on this issue among us, to find mutual solustion, and we also ask you to work together with us on this matter. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 14 04:52:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:52:49 +1300 Subject: [governance] my remarks prepared now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some quick thoughts: - Agree with notions that organisations should host information about national, regional and global IGFs on their websites to encourage awareness; - Encourage vertical and horizontal integration of issues from national and regional IGFs to feed into the global IGF; - Congratulate the IGF Secretariat on the increase in remote participation in Nairobi (compared to Vilnius from 1 remote hub to 8 hubs from the Pacific in Nairobi); - The UN needs to coordinate with its points of presence in various regions to get behind the regional IGF and support the initiatives; The IGF Secretariat should send letters to push this throughout the UN or something; - Agree that the voice of emerging economies needs to be heard and encourage diversity; On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > This is my draft, I plan to read this not representing IGC, but still . > In 10 min or so... any immediate comment welcome, > > izumi > > > A comment from civil society participants > at the IGF Open Consultation > > 14 Febtruaru2012 > > I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus, or CS IGC, and also a civil society member of the > CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements. > > This is not to represent the whole IGC formaly, but still I would like > to make the following remarks for the record as a member of the civil > society, long particiapted in WSIS I, WGIG WSIS II, all IGFs and CSTD > meetings for IGF. > > First, we are encouraged to see many of our friends in our room and > also those who could not physically present here but participating > remotely who all have strong interest to continue our work, for > organizing the second round of the IGF. > > As you all know, Civil Society is a very important component of the > multi-stakeholder framework and operation of IGF. This means that we > like to work with you, government, private sector, techincal and > academic community, among others, all stakeholders together. First and > foremost, we would like to keep this spriti high, and also like to see > enhanced multi-stakeholder participation for the IGF 2.0 > > We are also very much in favor of enhancing the participation from the > developing parts of the world in IGF, its consultation meetings like > today, MAG, and other important areas. > > In this regard, we are very concerend that the current economic > situation is putting some shades into the financial parts of the IGF > organization. > We feel very strongly that funding support is very much needed to make > IGF further success. We, Civil Society, are one of the least > resourceful stakeholders and therefore we always seek for funding > support, especially for the MAG and CSTD works, and also for the main > IGF meetings. > Unfortunately, with the lack of funding support, many civils society > colleagues including MAG members could not make it this time. > Likewise, we have learned that our CSTD Working Group members will not > be able to physically attend the meeting next week again due to lack > of funding. > > Civil society and other groups with limited resources, such as > associations or networks of small businesses, need support to > participate in Internet Governance processes. Such support has been > inconsistent – not just in the case of the working group, but also in > the case of other important fora such as MAG meetings. This > consistently hampers full multistakeholder participation and restricts > the overall evolution - and results - of these processes. If the rules > and mechanisms of participation in IG processes privileges groups that > already have power and resources this 'imbalance' will be reflected in > the outcomes of these processes. > > We know we are not alone, however. People from the least developing > countries, small island nations, innovative but small SMEs, some > academics and even governments are often suffering from lack of > propser funding, and therefore, we don’t see many of these people in > this room or other IGF related meetings. > We acknolwdge the various kind donors who had provided great financial > and in-kind support for the civil society participation, as well as > developing country pariticipation, and hope to work together with you > again. > > Deepening democracy and multistakeholder participation in governance > requires the inclusion of groups and people who have a stake in the > issues under discussion but who are frequently excluded or > marginalized. It is not enough to grant the right to participate to > these stakeholders; provisions must be made to ensure that they can > exercise this right in full. > > Ensuring multistakeholder participation in the context of the WSIS > principles and the Tunis Agenda is not just about adhering to > commitments which many governments agreed to. The ultimate goal is to > generate better and more sustainable policy outcomes that reflect the > diversity of voices, ideas, concerns and needs of all relevant > stakeholders. > > We will work on this issue among us, to find mutual solustion, and we > also ask you to work together with us on this matter. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Feb 14 05:16:41 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:16:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] my remarks prepared now In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA4C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA4C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thanks Sala and Wolf and Imran, As it seemed few speakers were taking the floor (which is my mis-judgement ;-), I made my shortened remarks already. As the points Sala and Imran added, we have more time to visit these later today and tomorrow, and will do so as the agenda touches these. The one I read is sort of an opening remark. Finland and UK, among others, took good note of my remarks and mentioned that. UK said: "We note concern of civil society participation, that is fundamentally important, and also participation from developing and least developing countries is vital." something like that. Please read the real-time script on the website. izumi izumi 2012/2/14 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > Well done Izumi, > > it has my full support. > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU > Gesendet: Di 14.02.2012 10:42 > An: Governance List > Betreff: [governance] my remarks prepared now > > > > This is my draft, I plan to read this not representing IGC, but still . > In 10 min or so...  any immediate comment welcome, > > izumi > > > A comment from civil society participants > at the IGF Open Consultation > > 14 Febtruaru2012 > > I am one of the two co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus, or CS IGC, and also a civil society member of the > CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements. > > This is not to represent the whole IGC formaly, but still I would like > to make the following remarks for the record as a member of the civil > society, long particiapted in WSIS I, WGIG WSIS II, all IGFs and CSTD > meetings for IGF. > > First, we are encouraged to see many of our friends in our room and > also those who could not physically present here but participating > remotely who all have strong interest to continue our work, for > organizing the second round of the IGF. > > As you all know, Civil Society is a very important component of the > multi-stakeholder framework and operation of IGF. This means that we > like to work with you, government, private sector, techincal and > academic community, among others, all stakeholders together. First and > foremost, we would like to keep this spriti high, and also like to see > enhanced multi-stakeholder participation for the IGF 2.0 > > We are also very much in favor of enhancing the participation from the > developing parts of the world in IGF, its consultation meetings like > today, MAG, and other important areas. > > In this regard, we are very concerend that the current economic > situation is putting some shades into the financial parts of the IGF > organization. > We feel very strongly that funding support is very much needed to make > IGF further success. We, Civil Society, are one of the least > resourceful stakeholders and therefore we always seek for funding > support, especially for the MAG and CSTD works, and also for the main > IGF meetings. > Unfortunately, with the lack of funding support, many civils society > colleagues including MAG members could not make it this time. > Likewise, we have learned that our CSTD Working Group members will not > be able to physically attend the meeting next week again due to lack > of funding. > > Civil society and other groups with limited resources, such as > associations or networks of small businesses, need support to > participate in Internet Governance processes. Such support has been > inconsistent - not just in the case of the working group, but also in > the case of other important fora such as MAG meetings. This > consistently hampers full multistakeholder participation and restricts > the overall evolution - and results - of these processes. If the rules > and mechanisms of participation in IG processes privileges groups that > already have power and resources this 'imbalance' will be reflected in > the outcomes of these processes. > > We know we are not alone, however. People from the least developing > countries, small island nations, innovative but small SMEs, some > academics and even governments are often suffering from lack of > propser funding, and therefore, we don't see many of these people in > this room or other IGF related meetings. > We acknolwdge the various kind donors who had provided great financial > and in-kind support for the civil society participation, as well as > developing country pariticipation, and hope to work together with you > again. > > Deepening democracy and multistakeholder participation in governance > requires the inclusion of groups and people who have a stake in the > issues under discussion but who are frequently   excluded or > marginalized. It is not enough to grant the right to participate to > these stakeholders; provisions must be made to ensure that they can > exercise this right in full. > > Ensuring multistakeholder participation in the context of the WSIS > principles and the Tunis Agenda is not just about adhering to > commitments which many governments agreed to.  The ultimate goal is to > generate better and more sustainable policy outcomes that reflect the > diversity of voices, ideas, concerns and needs of all relevant > stakeholders. > > We will work on this issue among us, to find mutual solustion, and we > also ask you to work together with us on this matter. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *                               www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Feb 14 05:24:22 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:24:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] SkypeChat Message-ID: Those in Geneva now and also participating remotely have opened Skype chat. Please send your Skype Name to Sala if you want to be also connected. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Feb 14 09:58:54 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:58:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] To remote participants Message-ID: Could someone online, remotely participating, make specific intervention or input online, to be read and heard in this meeting? Especially around Human Rights. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 15 04:18:53 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 18:18:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting - just started Message-ID: Chengtai just said, as you can read from script, that this MAG meeting is open to observers, and also added that MAG members who want to take the floor, use their name plates and record their name. No mention about the observer's speaking slot. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Feb 15 04:24:16 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:24:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting - just started In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A565C0D-17EF-4F0F-87DA-728FEAFCA09C@acm.org> Hi, I would think that it is up to our CS MAG reps to bring up the issue of allowing others to speak. Or to propose the notion of having some of the MAG candidate from CS take the place of the current MAGots who could not travel to this meeting. But do we even have any CS MAGots in the room? Or are any of our MAGots who could not travel to the meeting on the meeting remotely? avri On 15 Feb 2012, at 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Chengtai just said, as you can read from script, that this MAG meeting > is open to observers, and also added that MAG members who want > to take the floor, use their name plates and record their name. > No mention about the observer's speaking slot. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 15 05:12:06 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:12:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG meeting - just started In-Reply-To: <7A565C0D-17EF-4F0F-87DA-728FEAFCA09C@acm.org> References: <7A565C0D-17EF-4F0F-87DA-728FEAFCA09C@acm.org> Message-ID: Fouad has brought the issue of CS observers to take the floor at MAG meeting, and MAG went into closed meeting for about 40 min, and now the verdict: According the procedure of MAG, in this meeting, discussion mostly involving MAG members, but we are very thankful to all observers and your opinion and comments are decided to give you possibility to provide some comments, and Chairman will announce - about five minutes for your comment, and after that, your opinion will be taken back by MAG membesr, Decisions of MAG members will take them into considerations. something like that. izumi 2012/2/15 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I would think that it is up to our CS MAG reps to bring up the issue of allowing others to speak. > Or to propose the notion of having some of the MAG candidate from CS take the place of the current MAGots who could not travel to this meeting. > > But do we even have any CS MAGots in the room? > Or are any of our MAGots who could not travel to the meeting on the meeting remotely? > > avri > > > On 15 Feb 2012, at 10:18, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Chengtai just said, as you can read from script, that this MAG meeting >> is open to observers, and also added that MAG members who want >> to take the floor, use their name plates and record their name. >> No mention about the observer's speaking slot. >> >> izumi >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *                               www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 15 05:40:37 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:40:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft report material for the CSTD IGF WG online - your comment very much welcome! Message-ID: Dear all, We are now at MAG meeting, as observers, but still it is open to observers. However, the CSTD IGF WG meeting next week is completely closed. Yet, on the CSTD website, the material. almost the draft Report is now there. It's titled as "Chairman´s preliminary consolidated version of the rolling document" together with Chairman's summary of the 4th meeting (Jan). http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=2068&lang=1&m=23408&year=2012&month=2 Could you please send your comments to this list, or any of CSTD WG members from CS, so that we can make effective input and influence next week in the closed door meeting. best, izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 15 06:57:36 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 20:57:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft Recommendation Doc Message-ID: Dear list, In addition to the documents already online for CSTD IGF WG, there also is an additional document sent to the WG members a few days ago which is not yet online. Though close in substance, it is much easier to read and understand, and closer to the final report, in my view. So, under my own responsibility, I am sharing this document with IGC list members. Please understand that this is a work-in-progress document and my intention is to have better inputs from the list so that we can work more productively next week. All the words here is sort of in square bracket, tentative, until everything is agreed. izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft IGF RecRep.doc Type: application/msword Size: 82944 bytes Desc: not available URL: From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 16 04:24:29 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:24:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] wrap-up meeting today? Message-ID: HI those of us in Geneva, Could we have a wrap-up meeting, say 15 minutes after the MAG meeting is over, for some 30 minutes or so. The venue could be the cafe. I know some have dinner or other arrangements in the evenings, but it would be nice to collect our thoughts on this MAG and also the way forward, including CSTD IGF WG meeting next week, and also our strategy for IGF2012, workshop, etc. izumi --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *                               www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 16 05:18:27 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:18:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Day 2 MAG meeting Message-ID: This morning, MAG started to duscuss on Main theme, carried on from yesterday. China proposed to delete "human" in consideration of host country. Almost all others said leave "human" in. So after 20 min or so, the Chair agreed to keep "human" in and host country agreed. Now, it's done. Internet governance for sustainable human, social and economic development Now we are discussing around the composition of main sessions. Brazil (Romlo) specifically mentioned Wolfgang's idea/proposal of having Internet Principles in the next IGF session, and Bertrand and others also support the same direction. Challenge is how and where, and/if, we can put HR as single main session or merge with other themes. izumi izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 16 06:34:52 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:34:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation Message-ID: Hi, I came with the following draft statement of sort: Any comments and additions most welcome. I have to go off-line soon, but will come back during lunch time and plan to speak at the beginning of the afternoon session. Thanks, izumi IGC Statement on remote participation We like to reiterate that remote participation is a cruical part of organizing IGF and we appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open consultation and MAG meeting which was opened to observers, we like to point out and suggest the followings: On the third day, remote observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live transcript. Even Mag members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators. We strongly urge MAG and IGF secretariat to consider the followings for the future IGF organizing work and IGF itself. ------ Provide as much interactivity as possible. Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderator (who do not have other jobs at the same time). Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as real-time transcription which can be easily accsebile with even low-bandwidth access ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 16 09:40:20 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:40:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Imran and Marilia, and also some comments on Skype channel, and I also spoke with Seiichi and the guys from Turin. I tried to incorporate all suggestions, as follows: more comments welcome. izumi --- IGC Statement on Remote Participation We like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of organizing IGF and we appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open consultation and MAG meetings which were opened to observers. We like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from Politecnico di Torino, or The Polytechnic University of Turin which was originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola in the first place. Building on that, we like to point out and suggest the followings to further improve our remote participation: There were some problems with video feeds and there was not a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. This idea should encompass those physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. We regret that remote observers were effectively excluded from the MAG meeting, because they had no access to live transcript. And we must add that even Mag members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators We urge MAG and IGF secretariat and ourselves, to consider the followings for the future IGF organizing work and IGF itself and work together: Provide as much interactivity as possible. Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderator (who do not have other jobs at the same time and is responsible to interact between the meeting physical participants+ speaker and the Remote Participants). Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as real-time transcription and video streaming / coverage of the meeting. Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive presentations access through RP. Due to limitation of sufficient funds availability for direct participation, it is crucially required for a common Remote participants as well as for a MAG members. ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 16 14:00:54 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:00:54 +1300 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My comments are inline [sorry just woke up] On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, > Thanks Imran and Marilia, and also some comments on Skype channel, and > I also spoke with Seiichi and the guys from Turin. > > I tried to incorporate all suggestions, as follows: > more comments welcome. > > izumi > > --- > IGC Statement on Remote Participation > > We like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of > organizing IGF and we appreciate the effort to provide remote > participation for the Open consultation and MAG meetings which were > opened to observers. > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to make improved remote participation a necessity. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and territories.Remote participation was the only way that any of these countries could access the IGF. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised through setting up parallel screens that enable people to chat and stream in to the sessions where those who are at the meeting can read these chats or feeds in text form and also see the various hubs who are participating. There should be a select task force or Working Group created that has representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation. These improvements transcend having the appropriate technical solutions and should also include the following:- - Outreach; - Mapping local and regional stakeholders; - Coordinating with people on the ground 10 months before the IGF in a series of strategic roll out; - Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can be better involved in the remote hubs etc > We like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from > Politecnico di Torino, or The Polytechnic University of Turin which > was originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola in the first > place. > > Building on that, we like to point out and suggest the followings to > further improve our remote participation: > > There were some problems with video feeds and there was not a clear > procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. This > idea should encompass those physically present in Geneva and those > observing the meeting remotely. > > We regret that remote observers were effectively excluded from the MAG > meeting, because they had no access to live transcript. And we must > add that even Mag members trying to participate online had difficulty > in contacting moderators > > We urge MAG and IGF secretariat and ourselves, to consider the > followings for the future IGF organizing work and IGF itself and work > together: > > Provide as much interactivity as possible. > Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants > > Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation > > Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderator > (who do not have other jobs at the same time and is responsible to > interact between the meeting physical participants+ speaker and the > Remote Participants). > > Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as > real-time transcription and video streaming / coverage of the meeting. > > Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP. > > Due to limitation of sufficient funds availability for direct > participation, it is crucially required for a common Remote > participants as well as for a MAG members. > > ----- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 16 14:29:32 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:29:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Sala, though it was too late to include this in the statement I made already, I will try to incorporate it with the CSTD IGF WG meeting next week. best, izumi 2012/2/17 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > My comments are inline [sorry just woke up] > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Thanks Imran and Marilia, and also some comments on Skype channel, and >> I also spoke with Seiichi and the guys from Turin. >> >> I tried to incorporate all suggestions, as follows: >> more comments welcome. >> >> izumi >> >> --- >> IGC Statement on Remote Participation >> >> We like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of >> organizing IGF and we appreciate the effort to provide remote >> participation for the Open consultation and MAG meetings which were >> opened to observers. > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to > make improved remote participation a necessity. > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > territories.Remote participation was the only way that any of these > countries could access the IGF. However there is room to improve processes > and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised through > setting up parallel screens that enable people to chat and stream in to the > sessions where those who are at the meeting can read these chats or feeds in > text form and also see the various hubs who are participating. There should > be a select task force or Working Group created that has representatives > from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that is dedicated to > seeing  improvements of Remote Participation. > > These improvements transcend having the appropriate technical solutions and > should also include the following:- > > Outreach; > Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > Coordinating with people on the ground 10 months before the IGF in a series > of strategic roll out; > Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can be > better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >> >> We like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from >> Politecnico di Torino, or The Polytechnic University of Turin which >> was originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola in the first >> place. >> >> Building on that, we like to point out and suggest the followings to >> further improve our remote participation: >> >> There were some problems with video feeds and there was not a clear >> procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. This >> idea should encompass those physically present in Geneva and those >> observing the meeting remotely. >> >> We regret that remote observers were effectively excluded from the MAG >> meeting, because they had no access to live transcript. And we must >> add that even Mag members trying to participate online had difficulty >> in contacting moderators >> >> We urge MAG and IGF secretariat and ourselves, to consider the >> followings for the future IGF organizing work and IGF itself and work >> together: >> >> Provide as much interactivity as possible. >> Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants >> >> Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation >> >> Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderator >> (who do not have other jobs at the same time and is responsible to >> interact between the meeting physical participants+ speaker and the >> Remote Participants). >> >> Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as >> real-time transcription and video streaming / coverage of the meeting. >> >> Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> presentations access through RP. >> >> Due to limitation of sufficient funds availability for direct >> participation, it is crucially required for a common Remote >> participants as well as for a MAG members. >> >> ----- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *                               www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 14:34:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:34:57 +1300 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Izumi, in that case if you could change "necessity" to "reality" in the first sentence, I would be grateful. Thanks. On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thanks Sala, > > though it was too late to include this in the statement I made already, > I will try to incorporate it with the CSTD IGF WG meeting next week. > > best, > > izumi > > > 2012/2/17 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>: > > My comments are inline [sorry just woke up] > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> Thanks Imran and Marilia, and also some comments on Skype channel, and > >> I also spoke with Seiichi and the guys from Turin. > >> > >> I tried to incorporate all suggestions, as follows: > >> more comments welcome. > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> --- > >> IGC Statement on Remote Participation > >> > >> We like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of > >> organizing IGF and we appreciate the effort to provide remote > >> participation for the Open consultation and MAG meetings which were > >> opened to observers. > > > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to > > make improved remote participation a necessity. > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > > territories.Remote participation was the only way that any of these > > countries could access the IGF. However there is room to improve > processes > > and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised > through > > setting up parallel screens that enable people to chat and stream in to > the > > sessions where those who are at the meeting can read these chats or > feeds in > > text form and also see the various hubs who are participating. There > should > > be a select task force or Working Group created that has representatives > > from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that is dedicated > to > > seeing improvements of Remote Participation. > > > > These improvements transcend having the appropriate technical solutions > and > > should also include the following:- > > > > Outreach; > > Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > Coordinating with people on the ground 10 months before the IGF in a > series > > of strategic roll out; > > Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can be > > better involved in the remote hubs etc > >> > >> > >> We like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from > >> Politecnico di Torino, or The Polytechnic University of Turin which > >> was originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola in the first > >> place. > >> > >> Building on that, we like to point out and suggest the followings to > >> further improve our remote participation: > >> > >> There were some problems with video feeds and there was not a clear > >> procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. This > >> idea should encompass those physically present in Geneva and those > >> observing the meeting remotely. > >> > >> We regret that remote observers were effectively excluded from the MAG > >> meeting, because they had no access to live transcript. And we must > >> add that even Mag members trying to participate online had difficulty > >> in contacting moderators > >> > >> We urge MAG and IGF secretariat and ourselves, to consider the > >> followings for the future IGF organizing work and IGF itself and work > >> together: > >> > >> Provide as much interactivity as possible. > >> Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants > >> > >> Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation > >> > >> Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderator > >> (who do not have other jobs at the same time and is responsible to > >> interact between the meeting physical participants+ speaker and the > >> Remote Participants). > >> > >> Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as > >> real-time transcription and video streaming / coverage of the meeting. > >> > >> Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive > >> presentations access through RP. > >> > >> Due to limitation of sufficient funds availability for direct > >> participation, it is crucially required for a common Remote > >> participants as well as for a MAG members. > >> > >> ----- > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > www.anr.org > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Feb 20 04:42:01 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:42:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Day 1 - CSTD WG on IGF improvement Message-ID: Now, the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvement starting. Unfortunately, Marilia could not travel to Geneva due to lack of funding. Other than her, we are here - Anriette, Parminder, Wolfgang and myself. Chair (Meter Major) - report on WGIGF 4th meeting. Established points of broad agreements on Items A, B and D, which is Shaping the Outcomes, Working Modalities, and Broadening Participation, but not C, Funding. Chair- ask for coherent texts with no ambiguity in case of dissent – alternative recommendations in addition to recommendations by majority interpretations should be straightforward Expected results of this meeting: Agreement on format and content 5-6 recommendations per topics agreement on evaluation and reporting on implementation of recommendations (CSTD) Preliminary discussion on Chairman’s report to be submitted to CSTD Chair's Remark: we are drafting recommendations not a treaty part of CSTD resolution, but not writing the treaty (like ITU) Working modality suggested modality: seek approval to use draft recommendations as working document - work: either in plenary/sequentially or in small groups and plenary - recommendations by consensus - in case of dissent – propose alternative recommendations [footnote] - circulate final version of Chairman’s report to CSTD among members of WGIGF for comment and approval after 5th meeting Basically, we agree on the substance of the report, and comments are mostly on editorial areas. I am really optimistic. I think there is mutual trust among members, with friendly atmosphere, all are determined to create something new. IGF secretariat will inform on MAG meetings last week for the Nov IGF in Baku, Azerbaijan I hope most of recommendations will be incorporated in the next IGF WGIGF 5th meeting follow-up Chairman’s summary of the 5th meeting List of agreed recommendations for the improvements of the IGF Chair’s report to be submitted to the CSTD on its 16th session from 21 That's Chair's opening remarks. Now discussion starting - I will not make detailed report, but will try to share some main points of discussions Izumi --- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Feb 20 08:48:33 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:48:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Day 1 - CSTD WG IGF - No. 2 Message-ID: Now,the first round of discussion: - to go in small groups or keep the plenary discussion. Most governments wanted to go in plenary, and that the way to go, - style of report - resolution style or recommendation, short and concise, need chapeau etc agreed -- Today we are going work on A & B, tomorrow, on C &D, Wednesday, on E and finalize the report. A - Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings Some asked: Who is going to implement these recommendations? After several rounds of discussions, the Chair asked to form a small group over coffee break, and then came back and discussed a little more, but went to Lunch, including the continuation of the small group discussion/negotiation. Now, this is the latest text proposal to be discussed after the lunch made among different members together: ---- Develop more tangible and impact oriented outputs - To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates of these questions should be stated in the outcome documentation with special focus on policy perspectives and aimed at capacity building. - New ways should be found to extract the outcomes of discussions at the IGF in the form of messages {or topical reports}, that should map out consensus and diverging opinions and capture the range of policy options available, especially with regard to the identified set of policy question - The IGF should continue to produce its current reports, including the chairman´s report, the sessions transcripts, the workshop reports and the overall proceedings. ---- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Feb 27 03:30:06 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:30:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] Co-co meeting Message-ID: Dear list, Sala and I had a long and good conversation this afternoon (Tokyo time) and evening (Fiji time) and just finished. We covered most of the issues currently on the table, ie, MAG selection, NomCom, Appeal Team, etc, mindful of my delicate situation as being MAG nominee, and agreed to write a summary report and will share here as soon as possible. It may take a day or two, I think, and I ask you a little patience. We had a very productive discussions and in the end made very good agreement for the next course of actions. We just like to make it clear in written form before making you to know. We really appreciate all the opinions and comments, irrespective of our "personal" positions, and take all of them into serious consideration, we promise. We hope to have your continued engagement support to co-cos, but also hope to have collaborative, effective IGC, and to that end we will do our best. Of course we remain open to your further comments after our report, and listen you all and try to help form our consensus by all. Sala and Izumi ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Tue Feb 28 15:17:46 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:17:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft compilation for IG4D Themes for IGF2012 Message-ID: Dear List, I was asked by Sala to try to consolidate various ideas for the MAG working on the IGF2012 themes. I could not really "consolidate", but here are the compilations from the Pirate Pad and this mailing list: I just listed the different topics suggested under IG4D thread and Pirate Pad, and made in Question form. Not too much help, but given my very limited time now,I hope Fouad could use them somehow into his input to MAG. I will try to work on other themes as well, if not all at once. Many thanks, izumi -------------------------- IG4D themes •What are specific global Internet governance issues that have particular relevance to development? •How can we Increase participation of stakeholders from developing countries with a special focus on Increasing Youth and Women participation in IG from Least Developed Countries? •Can IG, access, development and rights be inextricably linked to the rule of law in developing countries? •How can convergence of Internet and Mobile Technology help in bridging the gap and what needs to be done in the next 12 months? •Where can IG decisions stimulate work on building community skills and capabilities to take advantage of ICTs in development? [Emerging issues for IG4D] •How can Open Data affect Development and what are the governance issues around Open Data? These might fit into the general emerging issues track, but a development-centred look at these issues could also be useful). •How can IG4D become pertinent to social inclusion and development in Africa? -Sub-theme: *How to promote Internet education in Africa and develop and advocate for policies and initiatives that governments could adopt in this respect? *IT literacy and Internet literacy programmes targeted at particular populations such as housewives, youth, military personnel, farmers and socially excluded sectors such as low-income families and the disabled. This would be a critical and necessary step in order to increase internet uptake in Africa, bridge the digital divide, and promote social inclusion as well. Broadband - Catalyst for Growth •How to help developing countries to establish broadband policies which have direct link to their sustainable social and economic development? Could we learn from some leading examples in light of recent global economic turmoil? Suggested sub themes could be: - Policy Considerations; - From Rags to Riches [eg. of countries who have climbed out of poverty] - Stimulus - how to deal with the challenges ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 28 15:58:39 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:58:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft Compilation for Access and Diversity Themes Message-ID: This is my compilation for Access and Diversity Themes Note: Filtering issues should be dealt in Security, Privacy and Openess and Theme and Human Rights related issues should be dealt in Human Right Theme and thus moved to their track suggestions. Thanks, izumi ------------------ Compilation for Access and Diversity Themes -- Following topics are suggested and discussed Internet for Kids (and Child Protection) or IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET'  How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions?  How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth to contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged?What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address issues for children, young people and young adults?  Clean Contents Development Awareness Compaign for the Kids Internet.  Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance, (that is beyond the Contents Filtering for Kids)  -Vote for the Provisioning of dot-Kids (gTLD with IDN translations)  -Campaign for Free Access to Kids Internet for Next Generation.  .Search engine for Kids  Browser + Firewall for Kids Internet.  Do children have no Right to Privacy?  From what age do children acquire the right to privacy?  How to ensure there is positive content available to children in engaging online and making positive choice? [rather than adults choosing to control children's and young people's access to information with filtered online spaces] To create a universal definition for 'a child' is a major obstacle in harmonising policy and legislation. Can we find something that can be reconfigured to provide a benefit for the 'new youth' as they come along? Internet for Elderly or Senior Citizens The Internet offers them benefits and problems as well. They are a very large but rather marginalised stakeholder group. “Participation of vulnerable people in the Information Society and their voice should be raised” was also suggested, but no further specifics were suggested 3) MULTILINGUALISM 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local language. ●Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local language ●Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) ○ Panels that comprises of the IETF, ICANN and ITU to update the community on the work that is being done by these organisations on IDNs and explore some of the controversial elements of IDNs; ●Multilingualism in Global Policy Consultations should factor 4) 19. Internet for Women Or WOMEN EMPOWERMENT - also suggested but not further specifics were mentioned --------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 28 16:00:52 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:00:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft Compilation for Human Rights Themes Message-ID: This is my compilation for Human Right themes thread. I think there are still more themes that Civil Society want to push, but given tight deadline, and also some active players are right now engaged in the UN Human Right Commission, I would ask our MAG members to try to accommodate some more. Thanks, izumi IGF Themes Human Rights ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE; Internet as a tool of public participation (instead of “consultation”) - a tool for connecting governments, governance and citizens. 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision and Participation', (Instead of ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION) Balancing of rights - Intellectual Property Rights vs. Freedom of Expression vs. Privacy - Balancing the interests and human rights of producers and users of creative, digital goods of culture. - What are the most serious current imbalances and injustices? - Strategies for improving the situation Filtering - How do you balance filtering content and freedom of expression? - What should regulators consider when creating [filtering] policies? - When is filtering acceptable? [w/strong objection] * The spam problem - Problems caused by undesired automated communications - Undesired side-effects of spam filters - Strategies for improving the situation * Harmful and illegal content - What kind of content should be declared illegal? - What is done about this? - Undesired side-effects of some of these measures - Strategies for improving the situation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 28 16:54:39 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:54:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft Compilation for Taking Stock and Way Forward themes Message-ID: Taking Stock and Way Forward Dear list, the following themes were suggested for the Taking Stock and Way Forward session. thanks, izumi ----------- IGF Themes for Taking Stock and Way Forward "How are the rules for the Internet set". - Awareness of the process often leads to identification of the responsible actors. How to coordinate and harmonize the current plurality of developing principles for Internet regulation? Following combination of A and B is suggested, 90 min session each: •INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES FRAMEWORK or Internet Governance Regulatory Ecosystem and • B. BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: FACILITATING PARTICIPATION FOR ALL IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY AND KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY • PROMOTING HUMAN, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • CONTRIBUTING TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION • INFRASTRUCTURE, INVESTMENT ISSUES • SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES • [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 04:20:36 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:20:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Upcoming IGF Open Consultation & MAG meeting / Shall we start the conversation.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 13:57:54 on Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Robert Guerra writes >I am curious if anyone has any information to share about the upcoming >IGF Open Consultation & MAG meeting taking place mid-Feb in Geneva. I've also asked this question, on the list and in private email, but not heard anything back. One simple question: who is chairing (could be next year's host, last year's host or someone else - I don't think a new Special Advisor to the SG has been appointed). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Feb 1 04:22:35 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:22:35 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <+vHG5EZbRQKPFAD8@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, at 16:40:30 on Tue, 31 Jan 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes >is "joking" protected by the first amendement of the US constitution >and part of Article 19 (right to freedom of exression) of the UN Human >Rights Declaration? There have been signs for a generation at US security screening points (xray and metal detector) that passengers should not joke about carrying weapons. -- 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 04:36:27 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:36:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <8CEAE4B8F9EBAA4-1BF8-223D0@angweb-usd022.sysops.aol.com> References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <8CEAE4B8F9EBAA4-1BF8-223D0@angweb-usd022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Ronald You took the words right out of my mouth. The "shouting fire in a crowded theatre (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case *Schenck v. United States * in 1919) is iconic and has stood the test of time. Whereas Handyside v. UK 'widens' the scope of Freedom of Expression, this is counterbalanced by the "three-part" test on restrictions to this freedom. http://www.article19.org/pages/en/limitations.html Article 19(3) of the ICCPR lays down the conditions which any restriction on freedom of expression or access to information must meet: The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. The *Declaration on Principles of Freedom of Expression in Africa *uses a similar formula. It states, in Principle II: 2. Any restrictions on freedom of expression shall be provided by law, serve a legitimate interest and be necessary and in a democratic society. Best regards, Rui On 31 January 2012 18:21, Koven Ronald wrote: > Dear Wolfgang -- > > The problem is that the Homeland Security people can't seem to tell the > difference between "crying fire in a crowded theater," which is not > protected by the 1st Amdmt. and a genuinely funny or unfunny attempt to be > humorous. Given 9/11, can they really be blamed for erring on the side of > not laughing ? > > I really hate what we now must go thru to get on a plane, but I might > not even be around to hate it if someone got on a plane with a bomb. So I'd > rather just keep the hating to myself. > > Bests, Rony > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolf > gang" > To: governance ; Riaz K Tayob < > riaz.tayob at gmail.com> > Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 5:00 pm > Subject: AW: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from > US > > Hi > > is "joking" protected by the first amendement of the US constitution and part of > Article 19 (right to freedom of exression) of the UN Human Rights Declaration? > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Riaz K Tayob > Gesendet: Di 31.01.2012 16:23 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Betreff: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US > > > 31 January 2012 Last updated at 12:51 GMT > > > Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US > > Post-9/11 USA is highly cautious of any perceived threat, Abta said > > > Holidaymakers have been warned to watch their words after two friends were > refused entry to the US on security grounds after a tweet. > > Before his trip, Leigh Van Bryan wrote that he was going to "destroy America". > > He insisted he was referring to simply having a good time - but was sent home. > > Trade association Abta told the BBC that the case highlighted that holidaymakers > should never do anything to raise "concern or suspicion in any way". > > The US Department for Homeland Security picked up Mr Bryan's messages ahead of > his holiday in Los Angeles. > > The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the micro-blogging > service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy > America." > > The Irish national told the Sun newspaper > that he and his friend Emily Bunting were apprehended on arrival at Los Angeles > International Airport before being sent home. > > "The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of terrorist," Mr > Bryan said. > > "I kept saying they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet." > > No joke > > Abta, which represents travel companies in the UK, said holidaymakers need to > learn to be ultra-cautious when it comes to talking about forthcoming trips, > particularly after 9/11. > > Continue reading the main story > > > "Start Quote > > > Airport security staff do not have a sense of humour when it comes to potential > risk" > > Abta > > "Posting statements in a public forum which could be construed as threatening - > in this case saying they are going to "destroy" somewhere - will not be viewed > sympathetically by US authorities," it told the BBC. > > "In the past we have seen holidaymakers stopped at airport security for 'joking' > that they have a bomb in their bag, thoroughly questioned and ending up missing > their flights, demonstrating that airport security staff do not have a sense of > humour when it comes to potential risk." > > In another tweet, Mr Bryan made reference to comedy show Family Guy saying that > he would be in LA in three weeks, annoying people "and diggin' Marilyn Monroe > up". > > Mr Bryan told the newspaper that he was questioned for five hours about his > Twitter messages. > > 'Tweeter account' > > After the interview, Homeland Security's reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed that he > had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming to the United > States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. > > "Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy America." > > Paul Chambers was fined after posting a message about Robin Hood Airport > > The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it tried to > maintain a balance between "securing our borders while facilitating the high > volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses our borders every day". > > It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the United > States is a welcoming nation." > > Mr Bryan is not the only person to suffer from a misjudged tweet. In January > 2010, Paul Chambers tweeted that he would blow snow-affected Robin Hood Airport > in Doncaster "sky high!" if it was not reopened in time for him to see his > girlfriend. > > He was fined £385 plus £2,600 in costs - a sum which actor Stephen Fry offered > to pay on Mr Chambers' 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 04:37:34 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:37:34 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <8CEAE4B8F9EBAA4-1BF8-223D0@angweb-usd022.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9BF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Ronny, we al know this since decades and the "crying fire in a crowded theater" argument is well known, reasonable and reflects the issues of freedon & responsibility (or rights & duties) in public media and individual private communications. So nothing is new. The problem is that one can settle such issues only on a case by case approach taking into account the concrete circumstances and this needs due process and a legal procedure (and transparency). But as some people has said on this list, the more annoying fact is that Twitter posts are systematically watched by somebody else. Also here we know the difference between an open postcard (which can be read by any postman) and a closed letter (which is private and its content is protected by law). And Twitter is certainly a postcard and not a private letter. The problem here is that we have to be careful in critisizing similar practices by more restrictive regimes. The double standard approach will bring us back to the cold war constellation where the freedom fighters of the West were seen by the East as the "aggressors" while the peace fighters of the East were seen by the West as the "terrorists". So nothing is new and a clear answer is difficult. As said above it has to can be settled only by a case by case approach, taking into account the circumstances and based on clear criteria and standards which are laid down in Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. ________________________________ Von: Koven Ronald [mailto:kovenronald at aol.com] Gesendet: Di 31.01.2012 17:21 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: Re: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US Dear Wolfgang -- The problem is that the Homeland Security people can't seem to tell the difference between "crying fire in a crowded theater," which is not protected by the 1st Amdmt. and a genuinely funny or unfunny attempt to be humorous. Given 9/11, can they really be blamed for erring on the side of not laughing ? I really hate what we now must go thru to get on a plane, but I might not even be around to hate it if someone got on a plane with a bomb. So I'd rather just keep the hating to myself. Bests, Rony -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolf gang" To: governance ; Riaz K Tayob Sent: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 5:00 pm Subject: AW: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US Hi is "joking" protected by the first amendement of the US constitution and part of Article 19 (right to freedom of exression) of the UN Human Rights Declaration? wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Riaz K Tayob Gesendet: Di 31.01.2012 16:23 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US 31 January 2012 Last updated at 12:51 GMT Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US Post-9/11 USA is highly cautious of any perceived threat, Abta said Holidaymakers have been warned to watch their words after two friends were refused entry to the US on security grounds after a tweet. Before his trip, Leigh Van Bryan wrote that he was going to "destroy America". He insisted he was referring to simply having a good time - but was sent home. Trade association Abta told the BBC that the case highlighted that holidaymakers should never do anything to raise "concern or suspicion in any way". The US Department for Homeland Security picked up Mr Bryan's messages ahead of his holiday in Los Angeles. The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the micro-blogging service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America." The Irish national told the Sun newspaper that he and his friend Emily Bunting were apprehended on arrival at Los Angeles International Airport before being sent home. "The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of terrorist," Mr Bryan said. "I kept saying they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet." No joke Abta, which represents travel companies in the UK, said holidaymakers need to learn to be ultra-cautious when it comes to talking about forthcoming trips, particularly after 9/11. Continue reading the main story "Start Quote Airport security staff do not have a sense of humour when it comes to potential risk" Abta "Posting statements in a public forum which could be construed as threatening - in this case saying they are going to "destroy" somewhere - will not be viewed sympathetically by US authorities," it told the BBC. "In the past we have seen holidaymakers stopped at airport security for 'joking' that they have a bomb in their bag, thoroughly questioned and ending up missing their flights, demonstrating that airport security staff do not have a sense of humour when it comes to potential risk." In another tweet, Mr Bryan made reference to comedy show Family Guy saying that he would be in LA in three weeks, annoying people "and diggin' Marilyn Monroe up". Mr Bryan told the newspaper that he was questioned for five hours about his Twitter messages. 'Tweeter account' After the interview, Homeland Security's reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed that he had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming to the United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. "Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy America." Paul Chambers was fined after posting a message about Robin Hood Airport The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it tried to maintain a balance between "securing our borders while facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses our borders every day". It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the United States is a welcoming nation." Mr Bryan is not the only person to suffer from a misjudged tweet. In January 2010, Paul Chambers tweeted that he would blow snow-affected Robin Hood Airport in Doncaster "sky high!" if it was not reopened in time for him to see his girlfriend. He was fined £385 plus £2,600 in costs - a sum which actor Stephen Fry offered to pay on Mr Chambers' 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 04:52:25 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:52:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang Just for thought. A few years ago, a Brazilian teeanager was arrested leaving the US for telling customs officials that he was carrying a bomb when asked what a volume of luggage was. He was immediately arrested as the officials thought he was joking and did not see any humour in it. It turned out that he was acually speaking the **truth**, abeit in defective English. In Portuguese, "bomba" is both a "bomb" and a "pump", and the teeanager used the word "bomb" to mean "pump" to refer to the diving air compressor. It took a lot of high-level diplomacy for the US to accept the linguistic faux pas as a reasonable explanation. Regards Rui 2012/1/31 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi > > is "joking" protected by the first amendement of the US constitution and > part of Article 19 (right to freedom of exression) of the UN Human Rights > Declaration? > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Riaz K Tayob > Gesendet: Di 31.01.2012 16:23 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US > > > 31 January 2012 Last updated at 12:51 GMT > > > Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US > > Post-9/11 USA is highly cautious of any perceived threat, Abta said > > > Holidaymakers have been warned to watch their words after two friends were > refused entry to the US on security grounds after a tweet. > > Before his trip, Leigh Van Bryan wrote that he was going to "destroy > America". > > He insisted he was referring to simply having a good time - but was sent > home. > > Trade association Abta told the BBC that the case highlighted that > holidaymakers should never do anything to raise "concern or suspicion in > any way". > > The US Department for Homeland Security picked up Mr Bryan's messages > ahead of his holiday in Los Angeles. > > The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the > micro-blogging service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep > before I go and destroy America." > > The Irish national told the Sun newspaper < > http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4095372/Twitter-news-US-bars-friends-over-Twitter-joke.html> > that he and his friend Emily Bunting were apprehended on arrival at Los > Angeles International Airport before being sent home. > > "The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of > terrorist," Mr Bryan said. > > "I kept saying they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet." > > No joke > > Abta, which represents travel companies in the UK, said holidaymakers need > to learn to be ultra-cautious when it comes to talking about forthcoming > trips, particularly after 9/11. > > Continue reading the main story < > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312#story_continues_2> > > "Start Quote > > > Airport security staff do not have a sense of humour when it comes > to potential risk" > > Abta > > "Posting statements in a public forum which could be construed as > threatening - in this case saying they are going to "destroy" somewhere - > will not be viewed sympathetically by US authorities," it told the BBC. > > "In the past we have seen holidaymakers stopped at airport security for > 'joking' that they have a bomb in their bag, thoroughly questioned and > ending up missing their flights, demonstrating that airport security staff > do not have a sense of humour when it comes to potential risk." > > In another tweet, Mr Bryan made reference to comedy show Family Guy saying > that he would be in LA in three weeks, annoying people "and diggin' Marilyn > Monroe up". > > Mr Bryan told the newspaper that he was questioned for five hours about > his Twitter messages. > > 'Tweeter account' > > After the interview, Homeland Security's reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed > that he had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming to the > United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. > > "Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy > America." > > Paul Chambers was fined after posting a message about Robin Hood Airport > > The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it > tried to maintain a balance between "securing our borders while > facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses > our borders every day". > > It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the > United States is a welcoming nation." > > Mr Bryan is not the only person to suffer from a misjudged tweet. In > January 2010, Paul Chambers tweeted that he would blow snow-affected Robin > Hood Airport in Doncaster "sky high!" if it was not reopened in time for > him to see his girlfriend. > > He was fined £385 plus £2,600 in costs - a sum which actor Stephen Fry > offered to pay on Mr Chambers' 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 > > -- _________________________ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant _______________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 05:33:13 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 19:33:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] Upcoming IGF Open Consultation & MAG meeting / Shall we start the conversation.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Think the more important questions are do we have any comment on the Nairobi meeting and process (what can be improved etc), and what we think the main themes for the year should be. Those are the main issues for the meeting. About Azerbaijan and the country's rights record, asking about any provisions the UN's made to ensure freedom of speech, participation/entry to the IGF etc might be helpful. Adam On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at > 13:57:54 on Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Robert Guerra writes > >> I am curious if anyone has any information to share about the upcoming >> IGF Open Consultation & MAG meeting taking place mid-Feb in Geneva. > > > I've also asked this question, on the list and in private email, but not > heard anything back. > > One simple question: who is chairing (could be next year's host, last year's > host or someone else - I don't think a new Special Advisor to the SG has > been appointed). > -- > 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Feb 1 05:41:43 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:41:43 -0200 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4F2916E7.80707@cafonso.ca> Robotic stupidity is inherent to the profession, it seems, particularly when the service is in practice militarized. During the military dictatorship in BR in the seventies, soldiers invaded the São Paulo university campus (I was studying there at the time) and found a book on hydraulic pumps ("bombas hidráulicas" in Portuguese) and a paper on the dynamics of underwater explosions -- both from the engineering course in Fluid Mechanics. The texts were impounded. Someone must have noticed the stupidity later on and the texts were never mentioned in the military courts. I continue to be amazed at the Guinness record of stupidity when the immigration officers went to search for the shovels the Brits ought to be bringing from Britain to unearth Marilyn's body. This must be a record. []s fraternos --c.a. On 02/01/2012 07:52 AM, Rui Correia wrote: > Hi Wolfgang > > Just for thought. > > A few years ago, a Brazilian teeanager was arrested leaving the US for > telling customs officials that he was carrying a bomb when asked what a > volume of luggage was. He was immediately arrested as the officials thought > he was joking and did not see any humour in it. > > It turned out that he was acually speaking the **truth**, abeit in > defective English. In Portuguese, "bomba" is both a "bomb" and a "pump", > and the teeanager used the word "bomb" to mean "pump" to refer to the > diving air compressor. > > It took a lot of high-level diplomacy for the US to accept the linguistic > faux pas as a reasonable explanation. > > Regards > > Rui > > 2012/1/31 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > >> Hi >> >> is "joking" protected by the first amendement of the US constitution and >> part of Article 19 (right to freedom of exression) of the UN Human Rights >> Declaration? >> >> wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Riaz K Tayob >> Gesendet: Di 31.01.2012 16:23 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US >> >> >> 31 January 2012 Last updated at 12:51 GMT >> >> >> Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US >> >> Post-9/11 USA is highly cautious of any perceived threat, Abta said >> >> >> Holidaymakers have been warned to watch their words after two friends were >> refused entry to the US on security grounds after a tweet. >> >> Before his trip, Leigh Van Bryan wrote that he was going to "destroy >> America". >> >> He insisted he was referring to simply having a good time - but was sent >> home. >> >> Trade association Abta told the BBC that the case highlighted that >> holidaymakers should never do anything to raise "concern or suspicion in >> any way". >> >> The US Department for Homeland Security picked up Mr Bryan's messages >> ahead of his holiday in Los Angeles. >> >> The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the >> micro-blogging service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep >> before I go and destroy America." >> >> The Irish national told the Sun newspaper < >> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4095372/Twitter-news-US-bars-friends-over-Twitter-joke.html> >> that he and his friend Emily Bunting were apprehended on arrival at Los >> Angeles International Airport before being sent home. >> >> "The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of >> terrorist," Mr Bryan said. >> >> "I kept saying they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet." >> >> No joke >> >> Abta, which represents travel companies in the UK, said holidaymakers need >> to learn to be ultra-cautious when it comes to talking about forthcoming >> trips, particularly after 9/11. >> >> Continue reading the main story < >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312#story_continues_2> >> >> "Start Quote >> >> >> Airport security staff do not have a sense of humour when it comes >> to potential risk" >> >> Abta >> >> "Posting statements in a public forum which could be construed as >> threatening - in this case saying they are going to "destroy" somewhere - >> will not be viewed sympathetically by US authorities," it told the BBC. >> >> "In the past we have seen holidaymakers stopped at airport security for >> 'joking' that they have a bomb in their bag, thoroughly questioned and >> ending up missing their flights, demonstrating that airport security staff >> do not have a sense of humour when it comes to potential risk." >> >> In another tweet, Mr Bryan made reference to comedy show Family Guy saying >> that he would be in LA in three weeks, annoying people "and diggin' Marilyn >> Monroe up". >> >> Mr Bryan told the newspaper that he was questioned for five hours about >> his Twitter messages. >> >> 'Tweeter account' >> >> After the interview, Homeland Security's reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed >> that he had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming to the >> United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. >> >> "Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy >> America." >> >> Paul Chambers was fined after posting a message about Robin Hood Airport >> >> The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it >> tried to maintain a balance between "securing our borders while >> facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses >> our borders every day". >> >> It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the >> United States is a welcoming nation." >> >> Mr Bryan is not the only person to suffer from a misjudged tweet. In >> January 2010, Paul Chambers tweeted that he would blow snow-affected Robin >> Hood Airport in Doncaster "sky high!" if it was not reopened in time for >> him to see his girlfriend. >> >> He was fined £385 plus £2,600 in costs - a sum which actor Stephen Fry >> offered to pay on Mr Chambers' 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 sangeeta at twnetwork.org Wed Feb 1 05:58:41 2012 From: sangeeta at twnetwork.org (Sangeeta Shashikant) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 10:58:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Agenda Africa IP Summit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All, Attached is a draft agenda of the Summit. It is an updated version of what is available on the US government site. It is a pretty twisted agenda on IP. If you are interested to protest against this Summit, pls do sign onto the letter we have drafted to WIPO. See below Sangeeta Third World Network ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Dear All, The US government is planning to hold in April an Africa IP Summit in partnership with Japan, France, and WIPO. South Africa is hosting this meeting. The private sector (ICC, BASCAP,Pfizer, Eli Lily et al) is sponsoring this meeting. The main focus of this Summit is enhanced IP protection and enforcement particularly on counterfeiting and piracy. Clearly this is a platform for US, Japan France to promote the TRIPS plus plus agendas seen in ACTA, TPPA, EPA etc, and this Summit will be promoting more anti-counterfeiting bills in Africa. Many of these provisions are likely to have a problematic impact on access to medicines. If you are interested in more details see the US government site http://www.cldp.doc.gov/programs/Africa-intellectual-property-forum . The Commercial Law Department Programme of the US department of commerce is organising this summit. We think it is important to raise some concern over this event. So we have drafted 2 letters. One addressed to the World Intellectual Property Organisation WIPO (see below).We have also drafted similar letter to South Africa missions in Geneva. If you are interested to sign on to these letters, pls send me the name of your organisation and contact details to sangeeta at twnetwork.org or ssangeeta at myjaring.net by Friday, 3rd February. Regards Sangeeta Shashikant Third World Network www.twnside.org.sg --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Francis Gurry Director General World Intellectual Property Organization Africa IP Summit: Lacking a Development Dimension Dear Mr. Gurry, In 2004, the WIPO Development Agenda was launched amidst significant concerns that WIPO¹s activities lacked a development dimension, undermined public interest, while promoting the interests of IP holders. The Development Agenda received widespread global support leading to the adoption of 45 Development Agenda recommendations in 2007. We believe that at the core of these recommendations is the need for WIPO to ensure that a balanced and evidence based agenda on intellectual property is promoted taking into account the different levels of development and public interest considerations. Principles of transparency and avoiding of conflicts of interests also underpin these recommendations. In view of this, we note with significant disappointment and concern the context in which the upcoming Africa IP Summit will be held. Some key concerns are: Conflicts of Interest: It is worrying to see that a major event such as an Africa wide forum is being co-organised in partnership with US, France and Japan. These governments are known for advocating TRIPS plus agendas in developing countries in the interests of their own industries and priorities. For instance these countries are proponents of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a plurilateral treaty that is widely criticized for its secret negotiating process and the detrimental impact on public interest issues such as access to medicines, freedom of expression over the internet and access to knowledge. One key aim of the treaty is to export these problematic IP enforcement standards to developing countries. These countries also promote TRIPS plus standards through Free Trade Agreements such as through the Economic Partnership Agreements, and the recent Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations. It is widely known that the different TRIPS plus standards advocated to, and in many cases imposed on to developing countries, will have devastating consequences for development including on access to affordable medicines, freedom of expression over the internet and access to knowledge. These standards are imposed to ³kick away the ladder² for developing countries and to protect the interests of certain influential domestic actors. In view of this, WIPO¹s partnership with these countries to host an Africa wide IP Summit amounts to conflict of interests and is simply unacceptable. To make matters worse the Summit is being sponsored by the private sector in particular the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP), Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company etc., that clearly have a strong stake in a pro-IP protection and enforcement agenda . The involvement of the private sector also raises issues of conflict of interests. WIPO being an intergovernmental and a specialized agency of the UN must take immediate measures to ensure that all its activities are evidence based, free of conflicts of interests and undue influence of actors that are known to promote an unbalanced IP agenda. Lacking a development and public interest dimension: The Africa IP Summit concept paper suggests a programme that undermines the spirit of Development Agenda. It is premised on the notion that heightened IP protection and enforcement will deliver development and protect public interest. This distorted approach has no historical or empirical basis and has been clearly rejected by the Development Agenda process. Important development issues such as the different levels of development, the importance of flexibilities (e.g. LDC transition periods, exceptions and limitations (e.g. parallel importation, compulsory licensing,) in meeting developmental objectives, examining and addressing the impact of IP on critical public interests issues such as access to affordable medicines, and access to knowledge, appear to be disregarded. Even more worrying is that the Summit aims to promote the link between IP enforcement and public health and safety, presumably to frighten people into accepting inappropriate standards of IP enforcement agenda. We stress that an IP enforcement framework will not deliver effective public health protection as IP rights are not granted on the basis of the quality and safety of the product. Instead inappropriate standards of IP enforcement are likely to hinder public health such as access to affordable medicines. This has been amply demonstrated by the many seizures of quality generic medicines in transit at various European ports. Lobbying by some multinational companies and their developed country governments in linking IP enforcement to public health has led to a proliferation of anti-counterfeiting bills in many African countries as well as at the regional level, most notably in East Africa. The enactment of these bills is usually promoted on public health grounds. However in reality these bills are only about protecting the rights of IP holders and are in fact ³TRIPS plus plus² in so many ways, containing provisions that undermine flexibilities and that are detrimental to national developmental objectives such as building local production capacity, scaling up access to affordable medicines and improving access to knowledge. For example, most of these bills define ³Counterfeit² products as being substantially similar or identical to IP protected products, which effectively makes every generic pharmaceutical a counterfeit. In Kenya, enactment of the Anti-Counterfeit Act 2008 has been challenged by people living with HIV/AIDS on the grounds that enforcement and application of the Act will deny them access to affordable essential medicines and thus deny their Right to Life. Noting the controversies surrounding these bills, it is inappropriate for WIPO to be championing the strengthening of IP enforcement on alleged public health grounds. Further we stress that addressing the issue of substandard, poor quality medicines (also often labeled as ³counterfeit medicines²) is not within the mandate of WIPO but a responsibility of the World Health Organization. Dealing with the problem of ³counterfeit medicines² requires a focus not on IP enforcement but on building regulatory capacity and ensuring access to affordable medicines. A process is already underway at the WHO to address this. Apart from medicines, it is also not within WIPO¹s mandate to deal with other poor quality, substandard products thus it is surprising that the Africa IP Summit is heavily focused on this issue. Lack of Transparency & Information: According to available information, the WIPO and African regional IP organizations are key partners in the organization of the Africa IP Summit. However to date there appears to be no information available on WIPO¹s website about this Summit. This undermines implementation of the Development Agenda recommendation on transparency. Further the US government website[1] states that registration request will not guarantee participation and that the participants will be selected. However no information is being provided on the criteria that will be the basis for selection. Following the above concerns, we demand that: WIPO postpone the holding of the Africa wide IP Summit. WIPO should also reconsider its partnership with the different interests involved and work to organize a balanced forum that is development oriented and upholds public interests as well as that is free of any conflicts of interests and influence of actors that tend to promote an unbalanced IP agenda. The process of organizing such a forum, (i.e. the selection of speakers, the drafting of the programme, criteria for selection of participants) should be transparent and all information should be promptly available on WIPO¹s website. Further we also call on WIPO to avoid partnering actors that tend to promote an unbalanced IP agenda in its future activities. Signatories The Center for Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) Consumer Association of Penang Health Gap, USA Third World Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Africa IP Forum Draft Agenda ALL 18Jan12.docx Type: application/x-msword Size: 69413 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 sangeeta at twnetwork.org Wed Feb 1 06:31:48 2012 From: sangeeta at twnetwork.org (Sangeeta Shashikant) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:31:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Agenda: Africa IP Summit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All, Below is a draft agenda of the Summit. It is an updated version of what is available on the US government site. It is a pretty twisted agenda on IP. If you are interested to protest against this Summit, pls do sign onto the letter to WIPO circulated yesterday. Sangeeta Third World Network ------------------------------------------------------------- DRAFT AGENDA Africa IP Forum: Intellectual Property, Regional Integration and Economic Growth in Africa Cape Town, South Africa Cape Town International Convention Centre (CTICC) April 3-5, 2012 Tuesday, April 3, 2012 8h00-8h45 Registration 8h45-9h30 Opening Ceremony CTICC Auditorium 1 Suggested Speakers:(2-3 minutes each; Davies official opening 5-10 mins) >>> * DG, African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) >>> * DG, African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) >>> * DDG, World Intellectual Property Organization >>> * Japanese Representative >>> * French Representative >>> * Ambassador Donald Gips, US Ambassador to South Africa >>> * Dr. Rob Davies, MP, Minister of Trade and Industry >> * Suggested Moderator: >>> * Rory Voller, Deputy Commissioner, Companies and Intellectual Property >>> Commission (CIPC) 9h30-11h00 Plenary 1 CTICC Auditorium 1 ³IP as an Enabler of African Economic and Cultural Development² Description: Using IP to Promote African Economic Development, Production and Trade Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * Khalid Rahel, Chef de la Division de la Preservation du Patrimoine et de >>> l'Innovation (Morocco) >>> * Ron Layton, Light Years IP >>> * Hon. Betty Mould-Iddrisu, Minister of Education, Ghana >>> * Japan to nominate >>> * France to nominate >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * WIPO DDG 11h00-11h30 Coffee/Tea Break 11h30-13h00 Break Out Sessions on Applying IP, Enforcement of IP and the Management & Administration of IP 11h30-13h00 Track 1: Applying Intellectual Property >>> CTICC Meeting Room 1.41-1.44 ³Scoring with IP² Description: The Juncture of Sports, Trademarks, Broadcasting and Merchandising in Africa Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (4 to be selected): >>> * South Africa to nominate (re: World Cup/FIFA or Rugby) >>> * South Africa to nominate (IOC?) >>> * South Africa to nominate (broadcasting?) >>> * Japan to nominate >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Carol Croella or other WIPO 11h30-13h00 Track 2: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights >>> CTICC Meeting Room 1.61-1.64 ³Cooperative Approaches to IPR Enforcement² Description: Government Structures for Effective IPR Enforcement, Including the Development of IPR Task Forces, Regional Cooperation, and the Secrets of an Effective IP Law Enforcement Unit Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (4 to be selected): >>> * Omari Muwowo (Zambia) >>> * Ekizi-Egnim Akala (Togo) >>> * Patrick Gyan, Chief Collector, RILO National Contact Point, International >>> Affairs, Ghana Revenue Authority Customs Division >>> * Dr. Geoffrey Mariki, DG, or John Mponela, Fair Competition Commission >>> (Tanzania) >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Rich Halverson, Unit Chief, IPR/Outreach & Training, US Immigration and >>> Customs Enforcement, IPR Center >>> * Thierry Tuina (Burkina Faso), Permanent Representative for Interpol 11h30-13h00 Track 3: Management and Administration of Intellectual Property >> CTICC Meeting Room 2.41-2.46 Why CMOs are Important, Status of CMO Development in Africa, and Resources Available from WIPO and International CMOs for the Development of CMOs Description: Why CMOs are Important and How WIPO and International CMOs Can Help African CMOs Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * David Alexander, Sheer Music(SA) >>> * Robert Hoojier, Director of African Affairs, International Confederation >>> of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) >>> * Greenfield Chilongo, international Federation of Reproduction Rights >>> Organizations (IFRRO), Regional Development Representative (Zimbabwe) >>> * Irene Vieira (Ivory Coast) >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * David Uwemedimo, Director of Creators and Performers Support Division, >>> WIPO 13h00-14h00 Plenary Lunch with Keynote Speaker Cameron F. Kerry, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Commerce >> CTICC Ballroom 14h00-15h15 Plenary 2 >> CTICC Auditorium 1 ³Dangers of Counterfeit Goods² Description: Combating Counterfeit Products to Address the Threat to Public Health and Safety on the African Continent Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * Mr. Geoffrey Otieno, Sales Director at Sproxil East Africa >>> * Uche Nwokocha, President, Anti-Counterfeit Coalition, Nigeria >>> * Mustapha Hajjou, PhD., (Morocco) Program Manager-Africa, Promoting the >>> Quality of Medicines Program, US Pharmacopeia >>> * Bama O.Yao (Cote d¹Ivoire), WCA Hub Coordinator, CropLife Africa Middle >>> East, (Agricultural Inputs-fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides) >>> * UL representative >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * African Minister (South Africa to nominate) 15h15-15h45 Coffee/tea break >>> 15h45-17h00 Break Out Sessions on Applying IP, Enforcement of IP and the >>> Management & Administration of IP 15h45-17h00 Track 1: Applying Intellectual Property >>> CTICC Meeting Room 1.41-1.44 ³Promoting African Culture Through IP² Description: Exchange of Experiences Concerning the Protection and Monetization of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions in Africa >> Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (4 to be selected): >>> * Light Years IP on commercialization and cultural tourism >>> * Karyn Temple-Claggett, Senior Counsel, Policy & International Affairs, US >>> Copyright Office >>> * African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) to nominate >>> * South Africa to nominate >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Tshepo Shabangu, President, South African Institute of IP Law 15h45-17h00 Track 2: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights >> CTICC Meeting Room 1.61-1.64 ³An Offer You Can¹t Refuse: The Link Between Organized Crime and IP Theft² Description: The Global and Regional Trend of Organized Crime and IP Theft and Steps to Combat Criminal Activity Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (proposed 3 only given subject matter): >>> * Namory Timite (Cote d¹Ivoire) >>> * Colin Denyer, Senior Investigations Manager, Africa - Middle East >>> * Anti Illicit Trade Unit - Intelligence Unit Eastern Europe, Middle East, >>> Africa Region (EEMEA), British American Tobacco (BAT) >>> * Tom Kubic, Pharmaceutical Security Institute >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * John Newton, Programme Manager, Intellectual Property Rights Programme, >>> Financial and High-Tech Crime Sub-Directorate, Interpol Secretariat >>> * Representative of African financial crime/corruption division from Angola >>> or Mozambique-USG to nominate 15h45-17h00 Track 3: Management and Administration of Intellectual Property >> CTICC Meeting Room 2.41-2.46 ³Protecting IP on the Broadcast Spectrum² Description: Discussion on Various Approaches to the Protection of Broadcasting Signals in the African Continent >> Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * Bradley Silver, Time Warner (SA) >>> * Michele Woods, Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs, US >>> Copyright Office >>> * Nigel Sonariwo, Kenku Enterprises, Nigeria >>> * WIPO to nominate >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Elizabeth Kendall, US Trade Representative 17h00 End of Day 1 Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8h00-9h00 Registration 9h00-10h30 Plenary 3 >> >> CTICC Auditorium 1 >> >> ³Supporting African Competitiveness Through Innovation, Entrepreneurship and >> Voluntary Technology Transfer² Description: Increasing African Competitiveness Through Innovation Policies, Franchising, Licensing, and Commercialization of R&D Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * James Odek, Dean of Law School, Univ. of Nairobi, Kenya >>> * Andrew Sherman, Dolby General Counsel on IP-enabled innovation >>> * Eugene Honey, Director, Bowman Gilfillan on franchising >>> * Innovation Hub representative ­ South Africa to nominate >>> * Caterpillar representative >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Ambassador Betty E. King, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva 10h30-11h00 Coffee/tea break >>> 11h00-12h30 Break Out Sessions on Applying IP, Enforcement of IP and the >>> Management & Administration of IP 11h00-12h30 Track 1: Applying Intellectual Property >>> CTICC Meeting Room 1.41-1.44 ³Promoting Food Security through IP² Description: Harnessing Agricultural and Biotech Innovation in Africa through IPR >> Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * Mr. Peter Button, Vice Secretary-General, UPOV on Plant Variety Protection >>> Under UPOV Convention: Development of Laws in Africa >>> * Professor Monty Jones, Executive Director of Forum for Agricultural >>> Research in Africa (FARA) in Accra. Past winner of the World Food Prize--New >>> Rice for Africa (NERICA) >>> * Anatole Krattiger, research professor at the Biodesign Institute at >>> Arizona State University (ASU) or Evan Skinyi from Kenya on public-private >>> cooperation >>> * John H. Costello, the president and co-founder of CNFA on Agricultural >>> Entrepreneurship in Africa: Success Stories >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Japan to nominate 11h00-12h30 Track 2: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights >> CTICC Meeting Room 1.61-1.64 ³Practical Keys to Effective IPR Border Enforcement² Description: Best practices, experiences, and trends in combating counterfeit and piratical goods at the border Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (4 to be selected): >>> * Salihou-Mamadou Sidikou (Benin) >>> * South Africa to nominate >>> * ICC-BASCAP member company (ie HP) >>> * WCO representative >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * David Brener, Chief, IPR Operations Branch, IPR Center, US Customs and >>> Border Protection >>> * Grace Adeyemo, Nigeria Customs 11h00-12h30 Track 3: Management and Administration of Intellectual Property >> CTICC Meeting Room 2.41-2.46 ³Modernization of IP Infrastructure² Description: Building African IP Administration Office Infrastructure and Increasing Capacity to Participate in the Knowledge Economy Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * Marisella Ouma, Kenya Copyright Board (KeCoBo) >>> * African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) representative >>> * African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) representative >>> * WIPO to nominate >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * WIPO IT specialist 12h30-13h30 Plenary Lunch with TBD Keynote Speaker CTICC Ballroom 13h30-15h00 Plenary 4 >> >> CTICC Auditorium 1 >> >> ³Intellectual Property Industries as Revenue Producers and Job Creators² Description: Discussion on the Economic Contribution of Copyright-Based Industries in Africa Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * Dicken Marshall, Founder of Rafiki Records (Rwanda) >>> * Minister Cyril Chamos (Tanzania) on value capture >>> * WIPO to nominate (i.e. GDP studies) >>> * Musician to be nominated >>> * Microsoft representative >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Michele Woods, Associate Register for Policy and International Affairs, US >>> Copyright Office 15h00-15h30 Coffee/tea break 15h30-17h00 Break Out Sessions on Applying IP, Enforcement of IP and the Management & Administration of IP 15h30-17h00 Track 1: Applying Intellectual Property >>> >>> CTICC Meeting Room 1.41-1.44 >>> >>> ³A Spotlight on the African Film Industry² Description: A Dialogue on the Culture and Business Models of Film in Africa Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (4 to be selected): >>>> * Franco Saachi, Zambian documentarian of Nollywood, filmmaker in Residence >>>> at Boston University. >>>> * Amaka Igwe, film director and CEO of Amaka Igwe Studios. >>>> * Afam Ezekude, Director General of the Nigerian Copyright Commission >>>> * Kevin Fleischer, Executive Producer of film ³Otelo Burning² (South >>>> Africa) Suggested moderator: >>> * Greg Olaniran, Partner, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp (MSK)- Back up panelists: >>>> * Desmond Elliott, Nollywood actor >>>> * Zik Zulu Okafor, President of the Nigerian Association of Movie Producers >>>> * Professor Oluyinka Esan 15h30-17h00 Track 2: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights >> CTICC Meeting Room 1.61-1.64 ³View from the Bench: Lessons Learned in the Civil and Criminal Adjudication of IP Cases² Description: A Dialog on the Successes and Challenges Faced by Enforcement Officials in Investigating and Prosecuting IP Crime in the Region >>> Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (4 to be selected): >>> * Justice Olajumoke Olusola Pedro, Lagos State High Court >>> * Marie-Flore Kouame, Trial Attorney, CCIPS, US Department of Justice >>> * Senegalese judge-USG to nominate >>> * Felix Koku Mawusi, Ghanaian prosecutor >> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Honorable Judge Bernice B. Donald, US 6th Circuit >>> * Ret. Judge Louis Harms-South Africa to invite 15h30-17h00 Track 3: Management and Administration of Intellectual Property >> CTICC Meeting Room 2.41-2.46 ³Establishing an African Brand² Description: Exchange of Experiences in Trademark and Geographical Indication Protection and Commercialization >> Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * Getachew Mengestie, IP Consultant (Ethiopia) >>> * Justin Hughes, US Patent and Trademark Office >>> * South Africa to nominate SADC region representative >>> * France to nominate West or Central African >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Gift Sibanda, Director General, African Regional Intellectual Property >>> Organization (ARIPO) 17h00 End of day 2 Thursday, April 5, 2012 8h00-9h00 Registration 9h00-10h30 Plenary 5 >> CTICC Auditorium 1 >> >> Cooperative Approaches to IPR Protection² Description: Discussion on Various Approaches to IPR Protection by National Agencies, Regional Cooperatives, and the Private Sector >> >> Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * Sindiso Ngwenya, Secretary General, COMESA >>> * EAC Secretary General or representative >>> * Stephen Mallowah, CEO, Kenya Anti-Counterfeit Agency >>> * Hon. Hannah Tetteh, Minister of Trade and Industry, Ghana >>> * Regional Chairman, Unilever >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice >>>> or Nnamdi Kalu Ezera, Senior Counsel, CLDP 10h30-11h00 Coffee/tea break >>> >>> 11h00-12h30 Break Out Sessions on Applying IP, Enforcement of IP and the >>> Management & Administration of IP 11h00-12h30 Track 1: Applying Intellectual Property >>> >>> CTICC Meeting Room 1.41-1.44 ³Creating IPR Incentives for Local Innovation and Production of Medicines² Description: A Dialogue on Possible Approaches to Public-Private Cooperation in Creating the Economic Environment for Incentivizing Local Innovation and Production in the Pharmaceutical Sector Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * Konji Sabati, Director, Department of Traditional Knowledge and Global >>> Challenges, WIPO >>> * Lawrence Welch, Assistant General Patent Counsel and Director, Global >>> Patent Procurement, Eli Lilly (US) >>> * Stéphane Drouin, Vice President/International Patents, Pfizer Inc. >>> * Dr. Solomon Mpoke, CEO, Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) >>> * Representative of non-governmental organization involved in WIPO Re:Search >>> Consortium >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Lois Quam, Global Health Initiative 11h00-12h30 Track 2: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights >> >> CTICC Meeting Room 1.61-1.64 ³IPR Enforcement in Cyberspace² Description: A Discussion on How Technological Developments in the Digital Environment Have Exacerbated Counterfeiting and Pirating Activity, and Possible Steps at Combating Such Activity >> >> Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (4 to be selected): >>> * Representative from Mali-USG to nominate >>> * Tony Abulu, CEO or Caroline Okolo, Director of Operations Film Association >>> of Nigeria (FAN) >>> * John Robertson, Special Agent, US Federal Bureau of Investigation >>> * Cyber Investigator, South African Police Service, Computer Crime >>> Investigative Section (name to be provided by US Department of Justice) >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Solomon Monyame (Botswana) >>> * Justin Hughes, US Patent and Trademark Office >>>> >>>> Backup speaker: Basil Udotai, Chair, Nigeria Cyberwire Working Group-CLDP >>>> Outreach 11h00-12h30 Track 3: Management and Administration of Intellectual Property >> >> CTICC Meeting Room 2.41-2.46 >> >> ³Compensating Creators² Description: How Collective Bargaining Ensures that Creators/Performers Earn a Fair Livelihood and Contributes to a Solid, Vibrant Industry Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (4 to be selected): >>> * Dianna Hopeson, Musicians¹ Union of Ghana (MUSIGA) >>> * Dick Matovu, Uganda Musicians¹ Union or Abdoul Aziz Dieng, Senegal >>> Musicians¹ Union >>> * Oupa Lebogo, Creative workers union of SA >>> * American Federation of Musicians representative >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Agnette Haaland, President, International Federation of Actors 12h30-13h30 Plenary Lunch with TBD Keynote Speaker CTICC Ballroom 13h30-15h00 Plenary 6 >> >> CTICC Auditorium 1 >> >> ³Increasing IP Awareness by Engaging Stakeholders and the Public² Description: A Discussion on IP Awareness in Africa and Possible Methods for Increasing IP Awareness in the Continent Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * ICC-Business Alliance to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy BASCAP >>> * Kofi Essuman, Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Illicit Trade, Ghana >>> (CACIT) >>> * WIPO Outreach Services Section, WIPO to nominate (including matchmaking >>> database) >>> * France to nominate >>> * Michele Forzley, JD, MPH, Global Public Health Lawyer, Consultant & >>> Professor, Protecting public health with governance and rule of law >>> principles >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Dr. Edou Edou, Director General, African Intellectual Property >>> Organization (OAPI) 15h00-15h30 Coffee/tea break >>> 15h30-17h00 Break Out Sessions on Applying IP, Enforcement of IP and the >>> Management & Administration of IP 15h30-17h00 Track 1: Applying Intellectual Property >>> >>> CTICC Meeting Room 1.41-1.44 ³Commercializing African Music² Description: A Primer on Music Commercialization >> >> Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (4 to be selected): >>> * Ralph Simon, Mobilium (SA now in US/UK) on mobile platforms >>> * Cobhams Asuquo, Nigerian music producer >>> * Erin McKeown (US artist) on how to record cheaply, build a website and >>> monetize music >>> * Yoel Kenan, CEO and founder of AFRICORI, SA >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Rose Skelton, journalist (Senegal/UK) 15h30-17h00 Track 2: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights >> >> CTICC Meeting Room 1.61-1.64 ³Guarding Investments Through IP Contracts² Description: A Discussion on IP Contracts and, in Particular, the Inclusion of Arbitration and Mediation Provisions to Protect the Value of Intellectual Property Assets >> >> >> Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers (4 to be selected): >>> * South Africa to nominate South African judge >>> * Kathryn Park, General Electric >>> * Representative of Licensing Executive Society and/or INTA from Gabon, >>> Angola and/or Mozambique >>> * Esmé Du Plessis, Patent Attorney and Senior Consultant, Adams & Adams >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Kevin Rosenbaum, US Patent and Trademark Office >>> * Prof. Bankole Sodipo, President, IP Law Association of Nigeria 15h30-17h00 Track 3: Management and Administration of Intellectual Property >> >> CTICC Meeting Room 2.41-2.46 ³Designing for Success: Protecting Product Design and Fashion, and Reaping the Benefits² Description: A Discussion on How Adequate IP Protections for Product and Fashion Designs Create Wealth Building and Investment Opportunities. >> Panel: >>> * Suggested speakers: >>> * African Fashion International (AFI) representative >>> * WIPO to nominate product/industrial design person >>> * Patricia Francis, Executive Director, International Trade Center (ITC) >>> * Eric Raisina, Madagascan fashion designer >>> * Suggested moderator: >>> * Abioye Ella Oyewole, Attorney Advisor, US Copyright Office 17h00-17h30 Closing Ceremony and End of Africa IP 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Feb 1 06:32:23 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:32:23 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at) References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F281A0C.4040101@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <20120201113223.1DFF242D4@quill.bollow.ch> Matthias C. Kettemann wrote: > The US Constitution, Art 19 ICCPR and Article 10 ECHR protect jokes, > just as any other form of speech, but there are limits to these rights. > Restrictions are possible if they are "in accordance with law", pursue a > legitime aim (e.g. national security, public safety, protecting the > rights of others) and are "necessary in a democratic society". > > When it comes to border control agents, the situation is different > insofar as tourist don't have a right to enter the US and border patrol > agents thus a rather large leeway in establishing reasons to deny access. This is of course true, yes - but I would still think that these legal protections of freedom of speech imply that the goverment must not adopt policies that have the chilling effect that people must be careful, even when not in the physical presence of representatives of the government, to avoid communicating to friends and family in ways that government representatives could misinterpret. In the present case it's even worse, because this US government policy implies that some people outside the US must avoid communicating with family and friends in some ways that are currently perfectly normal in their culture. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 07:22:37 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:22:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] Message-ID: Dear All, We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential candidates to submit their information in the template shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the information submitted in required format could mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 08:06:13 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:06:13 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as follows: 1. Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda 2. Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan 3. Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada 4. Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) 5. Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) 6. Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina 7. Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their information in via the required template would mean that their names would not be sent. Kind Regards On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > > In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had > completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information in > the required format and an email was sent out to the potential candidates > to submit their information in the template shown within the email. > Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the information > submitted in required format could mean that their names would not be put > forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to enable this > information to be sent. > > Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 08:39:43 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <4F2916E7.80707@cafonso.ca> References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F2916E7.80707@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4F29409F.4050800@gmail.com> Robotic stupidity compounded Carlos. What amazes me is the spectrum of thought on this thread... in the long gone past (before the Patriot Act gained acceptance as a tool of legitimate governance) there were big differences between those "liberals" jealous of their freedoms from the state from others who are proportionate and reasonable... and the former are missing in large order including the "i disagree with what you say but will fight (sans violence) for the right for you to say it"... on freedom of speech I do think instead of thinking like governments/courts need more "jealous" liberals, jealous of any imposition/restriction . . . Sometimes I feel that instead of being civil society, wuddenly we are lawmakers and being "proportionate" when it is the government who should make the case for any limitation on rights... one need only look at the discussions on the Great Firewall of China to look askance at the treatment this issue is receiving... which is an entirely other story... how about your internet bill of rights? On 2012/02/01 12:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Robotic stupidity is inherent to the profession, it seems, particularly > when the service is in practice militarized. > > During the military dictatorship in BR in the seventies, soldiers > invaded the São Paulo university campus (I was studying there at the > time) and found a book on hydraulic pumps ("bombas hidráulicas" in > Portuguese) and a paper on the dynamics of underwater explosions -- both > from the engineering course in Fluid Mechanics. The texts were > impounded. Someone must have noticed the stupidity later on and the > texts were never mentioned in the military courts. > > I continue to be amazed at the Guinness record of stupidity when the > immigration officers went to search for the shovels the Brits ought to > be bringing from Britain to unearth Marilyn's body. This must be a record. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 02/01/2012 07:52 AM, Rui Correia wrote: >> Hi Wolfgang >> >> Just for thought. >> >> A few years ago, a Brazilian teeanager was arrested leaving the US for >> telling customs officials that he was carrying a bomb when asked what a >> volume of luggage was. He was immediately arrested as the officials thought >> he was joking and did not see any humour in it. >> >> It turned out that he was acually speaking the **truth**, abeit in >> defective English. In Portuguese, "bomba" is both a "bomb" and a "pump", >> and the teeanager used the word "bomb" to mean "pump" to refer to the >> diving air compressor. >> >> It took a lot of high-level diplomacy for the US to accept the linguistic >> faux pas as a reasonable explanation. >> >> Regards >> >> Rui >> >> 2012/1/31 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"< >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> >> >>> Hi >>> >>> is "joking" protected by the first amendement of the US constitution and >>> part of Article 19 (right to freedom of exression) of the UN Human Rights >>> Declaration? >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Riaz K Tayob >>> Gesendet: Di 31.01.2012 16:23 >>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Betreff: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US >>> >>> >>> 31 January 2012 Last updated at 12:51 GMT >>> >>> >>> Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US >>> >>> Post-9/11 USA is highly cautious of any perceived threat, Abta said >>> >>> >>> Holidaymakers have been warned to watch their words after two friends were >>> refused entry to the US on security grounds after a tweet. >>> >>> Before his trip, Leigh Van Bryan wrote that he was going to "destroy >>> America". >>> >>> He insisted he was referring to simply having a good time - but was sent >>> home. >>> >>> Trade association Abta told the BBC that the case highlighted that >>> holidaymakers should never do anything to raise "concern or suspicion in >>> any way". >>> >>> The US Department for Homeland Security picked up Mr Bryan's messages >>> ahead of his holiday in Los Angeles. >>> >>> The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the >>> micro-blogging service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep >>> before I go and destroy America." >>> >>> The Irish national told the Sun newspaper< >>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4095372/Twitter-news-US-bars-friends-over-Twitter-joke.html> >>> that he and his friend Emily Bunting were apprehended on arrival at Los >>> Angeles International Airport before being sent home. >>> >>> "The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of >>> terrorist," Mr Bryan said. >>> >>> "I kept saying they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet." >>> >>> No joke >>> >>> Abta, which represents travel companies in the UK, said holidaymakers need >>> to learn to be ultra-cautious when it comes to talking about forthcoming >>> trips, particularly after 9/11. >>> >>> Continue reading the main story< >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312#story_continues_2> >>> >>> "Start Quote >>> >>> >>> Airport security staff do not have a sense of humour when it comes >>> to potential risk" >>> >>> Abta >>> >>> "Posting statements in a public forum which could be construed as >>> threatening - in this case saying they are going to "destroy" somewhere - >>> will not be viewed sympathetically by US authorities," it told the BBC. >>> >>> "In the past we have seen holidaymakers stopped at airport security for >>> 'joking' that they have a bomb in their bag, thoroughly questioned and >>> ending up missing their flights, demonstrating that airport security staff >>> do not have a sense of humour when it comes to potential risk." >>> >>> In another tweet, Mr Bryan made reference to comedy show Family Guy saying >>> that he would be in LA in three weeks, annoying people "and diggin' Marilyn >>> Monroe up". >>> >>> Mr Bryan told the newspaper that he was questioned for five hours about >>> his Twitter messages. >>> >>> 'Tweeter account' >>> >>> After the interview, Homeland Security's reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed >>> that he had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming to the >>> United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. >>> >>> "Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy >>> America." >>> >>> Paul Chambers was fined after posting a message about Robin Hood Airport >>> >>> The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it >>> tried to maintain a balance between "securing our borders while >>> facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses >>> our borders every day". >>> >>> It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the >>> United States is a welcoming nation." >>> >>> Mr Bryan is not the only person to suffer from a misjudged tweet. In >>> January 2010, Paul Chambers tweeted that he would blow snow-affected Robin >>> Hood Airport in Doncaster "sky high!" if it was not reopened in time for >>> him to see his girlfriend. >>> >>> He was fined £385 plus £2,600 in costs - a sum which actor Stephen Fry >>> offered to pay on Mr Chambers' 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Feb 1 09:38:35 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:38:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Upcoming IGF Open Consultation & MAG meeting / Shall we start the conversation.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 19:33:13 on Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Adam Peake writes >Think the more important questions are do we have any comment on the >Nairobi meeting and process (what can be improved etc), and what we >think the main themes for the year should be. Those are the main >issues for the meeting. Indeed, bit I'm concerned we don't seem to be able to answer even the simple and less important questions. (And also, what's happening about the MAG nominations). >About Azerbaijan and the country's rights record, asking about any >provisions the UN's made to ensure freedom of speech, >participation/entry to the IGF etc might be helpful. The presentation of which might depend on whether Azerbaijan is chairing the meeting (and failing that, whether they are going to be present). Roland. >On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> In message , at >> 13:57:54 on Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Robert Guerra writes >> >>> I am curious if anyone has any information to share about the upcoming >>> IGF Open Consultation & MAG meeting taking place mid-Feb in Geneva. >> >> >> I've also asked this question, on the list and in private email, but not >> heard anything back. >> >> One simple question: who is chairing (could be next year's host, last year's >> host or someone else - I don't think a new Special Advisor to the SG has >> been appointed). >> -- >> 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Feb 1 10:11:13 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:11:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Upcoming IGF Open Consultation & MAG meeting / Shall we start the conversation.. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <23B4807F-9287-4BD6-A558-0D79DBC4187F@privaterra.org> On 2012-02-01, at 9:38 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 19:33:13 on Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Adam Peake writes >> Think the more important questions are do we have any comment on the >> Nairobi meeting and process (what can be improved etc), and what we >> think the main themes for the year should be. Those are the main >> issues for the meeting. > > Indeed, bit I'm concerned we don't seem to be able to answer even the simple and less important questions. (And also, what's happening about the MAG nominations). > There was a public call for comments that concluded on the 27th of Jan. A synthesis document will be produced ahead of the consultation. That being said, would be great if those on this list who sent in written submissions could share them so we could all discuss... >> About Azerbaijan and the country's rights record, asking about any >> provisions the UN's made to ensure freedom of speech, >> participation/entry to the IGF etc might be helpful. > > The presentation of which might depend on whether Azerbaijan is chairing the meeting (and failing that, whether they are going to be present). I take it as a given that AZ will be represented at the meeting. The question is - will they chair the meeting ? Robert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 10:34:14 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:34:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> Hi, Good names all. But, What process was used? Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted on the web site anywhere? Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in detail. Did I miss that? The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks that even further. avri On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as follows: > • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > > However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their information in via the required template would mean that their names would not be sent. > > Kind Regards > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > > In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential candidates to submit their information in the template shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the information submitted in required format could mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. > > Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed Feb 1 10:45:26 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:45:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> Message-ID: Good questions Avri, in the interests of disclosure/transparency... I self-nominated when the call first went around about a month ago and then forgot about it until yesterday when I remembered the deadline, followed up and very rapidly did up the required form and sent it along to the IGF and to Jacquie, literally at the 11th hour. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] Hi, Good names all. But, What process was used? Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted on the web site anywhere? Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in detail. Did I miss that? The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks that even further. avri On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as follows: > . Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > . Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > . Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > . Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > . Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > . Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > . Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > > However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their > information in via the required template would mean that their names > would not be sent. > > Kind Regards > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Dear All, > > We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > > In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had > completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information > in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential > candidates to submit their information in the template shown within > the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the > information submitted in required format could mean that their names > would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to > enable this information to be sent. > > Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 meraszendro at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 11:35:55 2012 From: meraszendro at gmail.com (Mera Szendro Bok) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:35:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Feb. 7th, DC MAP Forum: "The Global Internet and the Free Flow of Information" Message-ID: I'd like to invite each of you to Media Access Project's upcoming *MAP Forum Series, to take place on Tuesday, February 7th, 9:30 am-12:30 pm at the Pew DC Conference Center*. All RSVPs can be sent to me at mera at mediaaccess.org Thank you! *Please share our invite with your colleagues and friends: *http://www.mediaaccess.org/map-forum-series/ ** *The entire series is free and open to the public*. *Continental breakfast will be available.* *Speakers:* ** *Ben Scott,* Policy Advisor for Innovation at the Office of the Secretary of State, US Department of State *Bob Boorstin*, Director, Corporate and Policy Communications at Google *Cynthia Wong*, Director, Project on Global Internet Freedom, Center for Democracy and Technology bio *David Sullivan*, Policy and Communications Director, Global Network Initiative bio *Christopher Soghoian*, Security and Privacy Researcher bio *Ashkan Soltani, * Security and Privacy Researcher bio *Mark MacCarthy*, Vice President for Public Policy, Software and Information Industry Association and Adjunct Professor, Communications, Culture and Technology Program, Georgetown University bio *Additional speakers TBA* *The Global Internet and the Free Flow of Information :* Events throughout the world have highlighted the role that the Internet plays in influencing the civil engagement, revolutions and the political process. The creation and deployment of free social technologies has reduced the barriers for individuals and groups who create and distribute their own content and those using technologies to organize groups or movements. As a result, some governments see the Internet as a threat to stability and seek to minimize its influence. Others seek to create a domestic Internet environment by placing barriers to content from other countries. Still other countries see their role as facilitating the creation of an unrestrained Internet marketplace of ideas, even as they try to impose restrictions on commercial uses in order to protect trade and intellectual property. This forum will bring together diplomats, technologists, human rights advocates, and industry to discuss the freedom of expression opportunities and challenges presented to a variety of stakeholders by the Internet and new technologies. 9:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m.*Freedom of expression threats and challenges that online stakeholders face:* This panel will bring together technologists, diplomats, human rights advocates and industry experts. The panel will focus on the variety of challenges online freedom stakeholders face moving forward in 2012. Relevant issues to be discussed include freedom of expression issues, cyber security issues and surveillance tech issues in the context of how they affect online users free speech rights. Participants will also discuss the future role of innovation on how people will gain access to information. 11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.*Protecting online freedoms through effective public policy:* This panel will bring a variety of expert stakeholders together from government, industry and civil society to discuss the public policy forums and issues that are shaping freedom of expression online and internet governance. Currently, there are many discussions and actions being taken by international and public institutions that have the potential to shape the future of the Internet. Issues discussed will include, by whom and how the Internet should be governed, the challenges and importance of a multi-stakeholder approach, the role that network management plays and the creation of Internet Policy Principles. Location:*South America Room* *Pew Conference Center* *901 E Street Northwest* *Washington DC 20004**Twitter hashtag: #MAPForum* This event will not be live streamed, so please plan on attending. -- Join MAP on February 7th for "The Global Internet and the Free Flow of Information" MAP Forum! Mera Szendro Bok | mera at mediaaccess.org Communications and Development Director Media Access Project, 1625 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 p. 202-454-5685 f. 202-466-7656 Follow MAP on Twitter and Facebookfor MAP's latest updates www.mediaaccess.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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 11:41:18 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:41:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <4F29409F.4050800@gmail.com> References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F2916E7.80707@cafonso.ca> <4F29409F.4050800@gmail.com> Message-ID: And judging by this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16811042 we had all better start learning to self-regulate our innermost thoughts from now. Deirdre On 1 February 2012 09:39, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Robotic stupidity compounded Carlos. > > What amazes me is the spectrum of thought on this thread... in the long > gone past (before the Patriot Act gained acceptance as a tool of legitimate > governance) there were big differences between those "liberals" jealous of > their freedoms from the state from others who are proportionate and > reasonable... and the former are missing in large order including the "i > disagree with what you say but will fight (sans violence) for the right for > you to say it"... > > on freedom of speech I do think instead of thinking like > governments/courts need more "jealous" liberals, jealous of any > imposition/restriction . . . > > Sometimes I feel that instead of being civil society, wuddenly we are > lawmakers and being "proportionate" when it is the government who should > make the case for any limitation on rights... one need only look at the > discussions on the Great Firewall of China to look askance at the treatment > this issue is receiving... which is an entirely other story... > > how about your internet bill of rights? > > > On 2012/02/01 12:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Robotic stupidity is inherent to the profession, it seems, particularly >> when the service is in practice militarized. >> >> During the military dictatorship in BR in the seventies, soldiers >> invaded the São Paulo university campus (I was studying there at the >> time) and found a book on hydraulic pumps ("bombas hidráulicas" in >> Portuguese) and a paper on the dynamics of underwater explosions -- both >> from the engineering course in Fluid Mechanics. The texts were >> impounded. Someone must have noticed the stupidity later on and the >> texts were never mentioned in the military courts. >> >> I continue to be amazed at the Guinness record of stupidity when the >> immigration officers went to search for the shovels the Brits ought to >> be bringing from Britain to unearth Marilyn's body. This must be a record. >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 02/01/2012 07:52 AM, Rui Correia wrote: >> >>> Hi Wolfgang >>> >>> Just for thought. >>> >>> A few years ago, a Brazilian teeanager was arrested leaving the US for >>> telling customs officials that he was carrying a bomb when asked what a >>> volume of luggage was. He was immediately arrested as the officials >>> thought >>> he was joking and did not see any humour in it. >>> >>> It turned out that he was acually speaking the **truth**, abeit in >>> defective English. In Portuguese, "bomba" is both a "bomb" and a "pump", >>> and the teeanager used the word "bomb" to mean "pump" to refer to the >>> diving air compressor. >>> >>> It took a lot of high-level diplomacy for the US to accept the linguistic >>> faux pas as a reasonable explanation. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> 2012/1/31 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"< >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter@**medienkomm.uni-halle.de >>> > >>> >>> Hi >>>> >>>> is "joking" protected by the first amendement of the US constitution and >>>> part of Article 19 (right to freedom of exression) of the UN Human >>>> Rights >>>> Declaration? >>>> >>>> wolfgang >>>> >>>> ______________________________**__ >>>> >>>> Von: governance-request at lists.**igcaucus.orgim Auftrag von Riaz K Tayob >>>> Gesendet: Di 31.01.2012 16:23 >>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Betreff: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from >>>> US >>>> >>>> >>>> 31 January 2012 Last updated at 12:51 GMT >>>> >>>> >>>> Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US >>>> >>>> Post-9/11 USA is highly cautious of any perceived threat, Abta said >>>> >>>> >>>> Holidaymakers have been warned to watch their words after two friends >>>> were >>>> refused entry to the US on security grounds after a tweet. >>>> >>>> Before his trip, Leigh Van Bryan wrote that he was going to "destroy >>>> America". >>>> >>>> He insisted he was referring to simply having a good time - but was sent >>>> home. >>>> >>>> Trade association Abta told the BBC that the case highlighted that >>>> holidaymakers should never do anything to raise "concern or suspicion in >>>> any way". >>>> >>>> The US Department for Homeland Security picked up Mr Bryan's messages >>>> ahead of his holiday in Los Angeles. >>>> >>>> The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the >>>> micro-blogging service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep >>>> before I go and destroy America." >>>> >>>> The Irish national told the Sun newspaper< >>>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/**homepage/news/4095372/Twitter-** >>>> news-US-bars-friends-over-**Twitter-joke.html >>>> > >>>> that he and his friend Emily Bunting were apprehended on arrival at Los >>>> Angeles International Airport before being sent home. >>>> >>>> "The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of >>>> terrorist," Mr Bryan said. >>>> >>>> "I kept saying they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet." >>>> >>>> No joke >>>> >>>> Abta, which represents travel companies in the UK, said holidaymakers >>>> need >>>> to learn to be ultra-cautious when it comes to talking about forthcoming >>>> trips, particularly after 9/11. >>>> >>>> Continue reading the main story< >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**technology-16810312#story_**continues_2 >>>> > >>>> >>>> "Start Quote >>>> >>>> >>>> Airport security staff do not have a sense of humour when it >>>> comes >>>> to potential risk" >>>> >>>> Abta >>>> >>>> "Posting statements in a public forum which could be construed as >>>> threatening - in this case saying they are going to "destroy" somewhere >>>> - >>>> will not be viewed sympathetically by US authorities," it told the BBC. >>>> >>>> "In the past we have seen holidaymakers stopped at airport security for >>>> 'joking' that they have a bomb in their bag, thoroughly questioned and >>>> ending up missing their flights, demonstrating that airport security >>>> staff >>>> do not have a sense of humour when it comes to potential risk." >>>> >>>> In another tweet, Mr Bryan made reference to comedy show Family Guy >>>> saying >>>> that he would be in LA in three weeks, annoying people "and diggin' >>>> Marilyn >>>> Monroe up". >>>> >>>> Mr Bryan told the newspaper that he was questioned for five hours about >>>> his Twitter messages. >>>> >>>> 'Tweeter account' >>>> >>>> After the interview, Homeland Security's reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed >>>> that he had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming to >>>> the >>>> United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. >>>> >>>> "Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy >>>> America." >>>> >>>> Paul Chambers was fined after posting a message about Robin Hood >>>> Airport >>>> >>>> The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it >>>> tried to maintain a balance between "securing our borders while >>>> facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that crosses >>>> our borders every day". >>>> >>>> It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that the >>>> United States is a welcoming nation." >>>> >>>> Mr Bryan is not the only person to suffer from a misjudged tweet. In >>>> January 2010, Paul Chambers tweeted that he would blow snow-affected >>>> Robin >>>> Hood Airport in Doncaster "sky high!" if it was not reopened in time for >>>> him to see his girlfriend. >>>> >>>> He was fined £385 plus £2,600 in costs - a sum which actor Stephen Fry >>>> offered to pay on Mr Chambers' 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 12:28:00 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:28:00 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> Message-ID: Deal All, Rest assured that in good time all these questions will be answered as at the moment, the list of nominees are not final as I am still yet to receive it in the requisite templates. What was sent to the list was a list of tentative nominees that the NomCom had selected. Michael, your nomination was supported by IT for Change Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:45 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Good questions Avri, in the interests of disclosure/transparency... > > I self-nominated when the call first went around about a month ago and then > forgot about it until yesterday when I remembered the deadline, followed up > and very rapidly did up the required form and sent it along to the IGF and > to Jacquie, literally at the 11th hour. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] > > > Hi, > > Good names all. > > But, > > What process was used? > Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? Where are > their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted on the web site > anywhere? Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC > expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? > > In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in detail. > Did I miss that? > > The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best > The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks > that > even further. > > > avri > > On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as > follows: > > . Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > > . Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > > . Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > > . Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > > . Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > > . Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > > . Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > > > > However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their > > information in via the required template would mean that their names > > would not be sent. > > > > Kind Regards > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: Dear All, > > > > We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > > > > In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had > > completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information > > in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential > > candidates to submit their information in the template shown within > > the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the > > information submitted in required format could mean that their names > > would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to > > enable this information to be sent. > > > > Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed Feb 1 12:36:42 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 09:36:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] Message-ID: <1328117802.59219.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Avri, Nominations were called on the list from NomCom on January 10, 2012 09:01 PM With the subject of [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG ... > However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their information in via the required template would mean that their names would not be sent. I also have similar objection: I never received acknowledgment of receiving EIO/nomination received by NomCom. NomCom did not asked to present! re-submit biography in any required format .rtf as template available on IGF site. However, I sent filled format .rtf to NomCom chair, and requested about confirmation, but did not received reply/feedback. Ms Salanieta told me that the required format was .doc and not the .rtf. However, the selection process and feedback have to open and transparent. Thanks Imran ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 8:45 PM PKT michael gurstein wrote:>Good questions Avri, in the interests of disclosure/transparency... >>I self-nominated when the call first went around about a month ago and then>forgot about it until yesterday when I remembered the deadline, followed up>and very rapidly did up the required form and sent it along to the IGF and>to Jacquie, literally at the 11th hour.>>M>>-----Original Message----->From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org>[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria>Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:34 AM>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org>Subject: Re: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT]>>>Hi,>>Good names all.>>But, >>What process was used?>Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? Where are>their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted on the web site>anywhere? Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC>expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere?>>In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in detail.>Did I miss that?>>The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best >The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks that>even further.>>>avri>>On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>>> Dear All,>> >> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as>follows:>> . Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda>> . Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan>> . Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada>> . Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain)>> . Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva)>> . Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina>> . Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan>> >> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their>> information in via the required template would mean that their names >> would not be sent.>> >> Kind Regards>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro>> wrote: Dear All,>> >> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates.>> >> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had>> completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information >> in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential >> candidates to submit their information in the template shown within >> the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the >> information submitted in required format could mean that their names >> would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to >> enable this information to be sent.>> >> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012.>> >> -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> To edit your 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 Wed Feb 1 13:02:24 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:02:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: <4F29409F.4050800@gmail.com> References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F2916E7.80707@cafonso.ca> <4F29409F.4050800@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F297E30.7020104@cafonso.ca> Caríssimo Riaz, people in our list love to do a lengthy, deep exegesis of any issue. Not thtat this might generate (or not) any useful result for our practice and advocacy, nor that it is (or not) relevant to the debate, but we do need to land somewhere and people keep hovering... :) frt rgds --c.a. On 02/01/2012 11:39 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Robotic stupidity compounded Carlos. > > What amazes me is the spectrum of thought on this thread... in the long > gone past (before the Patriot Act gained acceptance as a tool of > legitimate governance) there were big differences between those > "liberals" jealous of their freedoms from the state from others who are > proportionate and reasonable... and the former are missing in large > order including the "i disagree with what you say but will fight (sans > violence) for the right for you to say it"... > > on freedom of speech I do think instead of thinking like > governments/courts need more "jealous" liberals, jealous of any > imposition/restriction . . . > > Sometimes I feel that instead of being civil society, wuddenly we are > lawmakers and being "proportionate" when it is the government who should > make the case for any limitation on rights... one need only look at the > discussions on the Great Firewall of China to look askance at the > treatment this issue is receiving... which is an entirely other story... > > how about your internet bill of rights? > > On 2012/02/01 12:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Robotic stupidity is inherent to the profession, it seems, particularly >> when the service is in practice militarized. >> >> During the military dictatorship in BR in the seventies, soldiers >> invaded the São Paulo university campus (I was studying there at the >> time) and found a book on hydraulic pumps ("bombas hidráulicas" in >> Portuguese) and a paper on the dynamics of underwater explosions -- both >> from the engineering course in Fluid Mechanics. The texts were >> impounded. Someone must have noticed the stupidity later on and the >> texts were never mentioned in the military courts. >> >> I continue to be amazed at the Guinness record of stupidity when the >> immigration officers went to search for the shovels the Brits ought to >> be bringing from Britain to unearth Marilyn's body. This must be a >> record. >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 02/01/2012 07:52 AM, Rui Correia wrote: >>> Hi Wolfgang >>> >>> Just for thought. >>> >>> A few years ago, a Brazilian teeanager was arrested leaving the US for >>> telling customs officials that he was carrying a bomb when asked what a >>> volume of luggage was. He was immediately arrested as the officials >>> thought >>> he was joking and did not see any humour in it. >>> >>> It turned out that he was acually speaking the **truth**, abeit in >>> defective English. In Portuguese, "bomba" is both a "bomb" and a "pump", >>> and the teeanager used the word "bomb" to mean "pump" to refer to the >>> diving air compressor. >>> >>> It took a lot of high-level diplomacy for the US to accept the >>> linguistic >>> faux pas as a reasonable explanation. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Rui >>> >>> 2012/1/31 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"< >>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> is "joking" protected by the first amendement of the US constitution >>>> and >>>> part of Article 19 (right to freedom of exression) of the UN Human >>>> Rights >>>> Declaration? >>>> >>>> wolfgang >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Riaz K Tayob >>>> Gesendet: Di 31.01.2012 16:23 >>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Betreff: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred >>>> from US >>>> >>>> >>>> 31 January 2012 Last updated at 12:51 GMT >>>> >>>> >>>> Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US >>>> >>>> Post-9/11 USA is highly cautious of any perceived threat, Abta said >>>> >>>> >>>> Holidaymakers have been warned to watch their words after two >>>> friends were >>>> refused entry to the US on security grounds after a tweet. >>>> >>>> Before his trip, Leigh Van Bryan wrote that he was going to "destroy >>>> America". >>>> >>>> He insisted he was referring to simply having a good time - but was >>>> sent >>>> home. >>>> >>>> Trade association Abta told the BBC that the case highlighted that >>>> holidaymakers should never do anything to raise "concern or >>>> suspicion in >>>> any way". >>>> >>>> The US Department for Homeland Security picked up Mr Bryan's messages >>>> ahead of his holiday in Los Angeles. >>>> >>>> The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the >>>> micro-blogging service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep >>>> before I go and destroy America." >>>> >>>> The Irish national told the Sun newspaper< >>>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4095372/Twitter-news-US-bars-friends-over-Twitter-joke.html> >>>> >>>> that he and his friend Emily Bunting were apprehended on arrival >>>> at Los >>>> Angeles International Airport before being sent home. >>>> >>>> "The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of >>>> terrorist," Mr Bryan said. >>>> >>>> "I kept saying they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet." >>>> >>>> No joke >>>> >>>> Abta, which represents travel companies in the UK, said >>>> holidaymakers need >>>> to learn to be ultra-cautious when it comes to talking about >>>> forthcoming >>>> trips, particularly after 9/11. >>>> >>>> Continue reading the main story< >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312#story_continues_2> >>>> >>>> "Start Quote >>>> >>>> >>>> Airport security staff do not have a sense of humour when it >>>> comes >>>> to potential risk" >>>> >>>> Abta >>>> >>>> "Posting statements in a public forum which could be construed as >>>> threatening - in this case saying they are going to "destroy" >>>> somewhere - >>>> will not be viewed sympathetically by US authorities," it told the BBC. >>>> >>>> "In the past we have seen holidaymakers stopped at airport security for >>>> 'joking' that they have a bomb in their bag, thoroughly questioned and >>>> ending up missing their flights, demonstrating that airport security >>>> staff >>>> do not have a sense of humour when it comes to potential risk." >>>> >>>> In another tweet, Mr Bryan made reference to comedy show Family Guy >>>> saying >>>> that he would be in LA in three weeks, annoying people "and diggin' >>>> Marilyn >>>> Monroe up". >>>> >>>> Mr Bryan told the newspaper that he was questioned for five hours about >>>> his Twitter messages. >>>> >>>> 'Tweeter account' >>>> >>>> After the interview, Homeland Security's reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed >>>> that he had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming >>>> to the >>>> United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. >>>> >>>> "Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy >>>> America." >>>> >>>> Paul Chambers was fined after posting a message about Robin Hood >>>> Airport >>>> >>>> The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it >>>> tried to maintain a balance between "securing our borders while >>>> facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that >>>> crosses >>>> our borders every day". >>>> >>>> It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that >>>> the >>>> United States is a welcoming nation." >>>> >>>> Mr Bryan is not the only person to suffer from a misjudged tweet. In >>>> January 2010, Paul Chambers tweeted that he would blow snow-affected >>>> Robin >>>> Hood Airport in Doncaster "sky high!" if it was not reopened in time >>>> for >>>> him to see his girlfriend. >>>> >>>> He was fined £385 plus £2,600 in costs - a sum which actor Stephen Fry >>>> offered to pay on Mr Chambers' 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Feb 1 13:04:30 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:04:30 -0200 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> Message-ID: <4F297EAE.7010905@cafonso.ca> Avri's questions refer to the production of the tentative list, Sala. frt rgds --c.a. On 02/01/2012 03:28 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Deal All, > > Rest assured that in good time all these questions will be answered as at > the moment, the list of nominees are not final as I am still yet to receive > it in the requisite templates. What was sent to the list was a list of > tentative nominees that the NomCom had selected. > > Michael, your nomination was supported by IT for Change > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:45 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Good questions Avri, in the interests of disclosure/transparency... >> >> I self-nominated when the call first went around about a month ago and then >> forgot about it until yesterday when I remembered the deadline, followed up >> and very rapidly did up the required form and sent it along to the IGF and >> to Jacquie, literally at the 11th hour. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Good names all. >> >> But, >> >> What process was used? >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? Where are >> their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted on the web site >> anywhere? Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC >> expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? >> >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in detail. >> Did I miss that? >> >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks >> that >> even further. >> >> >> avri >> >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as >> follows: >>> . Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda >>> . Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan >>> . Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada >>> . Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) >>> . Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) >>> . Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina >>> . Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan >>> >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their >>> information in via the required template would mean that their names >>> would not be sent. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: Dear All, >>> >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. >>> >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had >>> completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information >>> in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential >>> candidates to submit their information in the template shown within >>> the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the >>> information submitted in required format could mean that their names >>> would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to >>> enable this information to be sent. >>> >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Wed Feb 1 13:09:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:09:11 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <4F297EAE.7010905@cafonso.ca> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F297EAE.7010905@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear Carlos, Yes, as mentioned in my other email, NomCom will publish its report. This Report refers to the production of the tentative list. I published the list because I was bombarded with questions by people on who made the list and hence the publication of the tentative list. Hope this provides the list with some comfort, that the details will be made known in the not too distant future. Kind Regards, On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Avri's questions refer to the production of the tentative list, Sala. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 02/01/2012 03:28 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Deal All, > > > > Rest assured that in good time all these questions will be answered as at > > the moment, the list of nominees are not final as I am still yet to > receive > > it in the requisite templates. What was sent to the list was a list of > > tentative nominees that the NomCom had selected. > > > > Michael, your nomination was supported by IT for Change > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:45 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > >> Good questions Avri, in the interests of disclosure/transparency... > >> > >> I self-nominated when the call first went around about a month ago and > then > >> forgot about it until yesterday when I remembered the deadline, > followed up > >> and very rapidly did up the required form and sent it along to the IGF > and > >> to Jacquie, literally at the 11th hour. > >> > >> M > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > >> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:34 AM > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] > >> > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Good names all. > >> > >> But, > >> > >> What process was used? > >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? Where > are > >> their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted on the web > site > >> anywhere? Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC > >> expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? > >> > >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in > detail. > >> Did I miss that? > >> > >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best > >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks > >> that > >> even further. > >> > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as > >> follows: > >>> . Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > >>> . Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > >>> . Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > >>> . Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > >>> . Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > >>> . Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > >>> . Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > >>> > >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their > >>> information in via the required template would mean that their names > >>> would not be sent. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards > >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> wrote: Dear All, > >>> > >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > >>> > >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had > >>> completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information > >>> in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential > >>> candidates to submit their information in the template shown within > >>> the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the > >>> information submitted in required format could mean that their names > >>> would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to > >>> enable this information to be sent. > >>> > >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 1 14:13:25 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:13:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: References: <4F280780.80607@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9B6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F2916E7.80707@cafonso.ca> <4F29409F.4050800@gmail.com> Message-ID: Deirdre, well, such hyped announcements need to be taken with some caution. According to Michael E. Gazzaniga (2011):* Who's in charge*, the models of the brain data currently used to interpret fMRI (pg. 195 ff.) "the coordinates of where a specific area of the brain is located are probabilistic" (it is a group average from a small sample of brains - French to boot) so going from general statements to "individual readings" is not going to happen tomorrow, or before I succumb to Alzheimer. It is regrettable that every small step forward in science is telescoped far into the hypothetical future. This probably stems from the fact that people want hope, not science.(see the hint that it may applies to comatose people "locked in". Aldo On 1 February 2012 17:41, Deirdre Williams wrote: > And judging by this > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16811042 we had all better > start learning to self-regulate our innermost thoughts from now. > Deirdre > > > On 1 February 2012 09:39, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> Robotic stupidity compounded Carlos. >> >> What amazes me is the spectrum of thought on this thread... in the long >> gone past (before the Patriot Act gained acceptance as a tool of legitimate >> governance) there were big differences between those "liberals" jealous of >> their freedoms from the state from others who are proportionate and >> reasonable... and the former are missing in large order including the "i >> disagree with what you say but will fight (sans violence) for the right for >> you to say it"... >> >> on freedom of speech I do think instead of thinking like >> governments/courts need more "jealous" liberals, jealous of any >> imposition/restriction . . . >> >> Sometimes I feel that instead of being civil society, wuddenly we are >> lawmakers and being "proportionate" when it is the government who should >> make the case for any limitation on rights... one need only look at the >> discussions on the Great Firewall of China to look askance at the treatment >> this issue is receiving... which is an entirely other story... >> >> how about your internet bill of rights? >> >> >> On 2012/02/01 12:41 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Robotic stupidity is inherent to the profession, it seems, particularly >>> when the service is in practice militarized. >>> >>> During the military dictatorship in BR in the seventies, soldiers >>> invaded the São Paulo university campus (I was studying there at the >>> time) and found a book on hydraulic pumps ("bombas hidráulicas" in >>> Portuguese) and a paper on the dynamics of underwater explosions -- both >>> from the engineering course in Fluid Mechanics. The texts were >>> impounded. Someone must have noticed the stupidity later on and the >>> texts were never mentioned in the military courts. >>> >>> I continue to be amazed at the Guinness record of stupidity when the >>> immigration officers went to search for the shovels the Brits ought to >>> be bringing from Britain to unearth Marilyn's body. This must be a >>> record. >>> >>> []s fraternos >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 02/01/2012 07:52 AM, Rui Correia wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Wolfgang >>>> >>>> Just for thought. >>>> >>>> A few years ago, a Brazilian teeanager was arrested leaving the US for >>>> telling customs officials that he was carrying a bomb when asked what a >>>> volume of luggage was. He was immediately arrested as the officials >>>> thought >>>> he was joking and did not see any humour in it. >>>> >>>> It turned out that he was acually speaking the **truth**, abeit in >>>> defective English. In Portuguese, "bomba" is both a "bomb" and a "pump", >>>> and the teeanager used the word "bomb" to mean "pump" to refer to the >>>> diving air compressor. >>>> >>>> It took a lot of high-level diplomacy for the US to accept the >>>> linguistic >>>> faux pas as a reasonable explanation. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Rui >>>> >>>> 2012/1/31 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"< >>>> wolfgang.kleinwaechter@**medienkomm.uni-halle.de >>>> > >>>> >>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> is "joking" protected by the first amendement of the US constitution >>>>> and >>>>> part of Article 19 (right to freedom of exression) of the UN Human >>>>> Rights >>>>> Declaration? >>>>> >>>>> wolfgang >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________**__ >>>>> >>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.**igcaucus.orgim Auftrag von Riaz K Tayob >>>>> Gesendet: Di 31.01.2012 16:23 >>>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> Betreff: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from >>>>> US >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 31 January 2012 Last updated at 12:51 GMT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US >>>>> >>>>> Post-9/11 USA is highly cautious of any perceived threat, Abta said >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Holidaymakers have been warned to watch their words after two friends >>>>> were >>>>> refused entry to the US on security grounds after a tweet. >>>>> >>>>> Before his trip, Leigh Van Bryan wrote that he was going to "destroy >>>>> America". >>>>> >>>>> He insisted he was referring to simply having a good time - but was >>>>> sent >>>>> home. >>>>> >>>>> Trade association Abta told the BBC that the case highlighted that >>>>> holidaymakers should never do anything to raise "concern or suspicion >>>>> in >>>>> any way". >>>>> >>>>> The US Department for Homeland Security picked up Mr Bryan's messages >>>>> ahead of his holiday in Los Angeles. >>>>> >>>>> The 26-year-old bar manager wrote a message to a friend on the >>>>> micro-blogging service, saying: "Free this week, for quick gossip/prep >>>>> before I go and destroy America." >>>>> >>>>> The Irish national told the Sun newspaper< >>>>> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/**homepage/news/4095372/Twitter-** >>>>> news-US-bars-friends-over-**Twitter-joke.html >>>>> > >>>>> that he and his friend Emily Bunting were apprehended on arrival at >>>>> Los >>>>> Angeles International Airport before being sent home. >>>>> >>>>> "The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of >>>>> terrorist," Mr Bryan said. >>>>> >>>>> "I kept saying they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet." >>>>> >>>>> No joke >>>>> >>>>> Abta, which represents travel companies in the UK, said holidaymakers >>>>> need >>>>> to learn to be ultra-cautious when it comes to talking about >>>>> forthcoming >>>>> trips, particularly after 9/11. >>>>> >>>>> Continue reading the main story< >>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**technology-16810312#story_**continues_2 >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> "Start Quote >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Airport security staff do not have a sense of humour when it >>>>> comes >>>>> to potential risk" >>>>> >>>>> Abta >>>>> >>>>> "Posting statements in a public forum which could be construed as >>>>> threatening - in this case saying they are going to "destroy" >>>>> somewhere - >>>>> will not be viewed sympathetically by US authorities," it told the BBC. >>>>> >>>>> "In the past we have seen holidaymakers stopped at airport security for >>>>> 'joking' that they have a bomb in their bag, thoroughly questioned and >>>>> ending up missing their flights, demonstrating that airport security >>>>> staff >>>>> do not have a sense of humour when it comes to potential risk." >>>>> >>>>> In another tweet, Mr Bryan made reference to comedy show Family Guy >>>>> saying >>>>> that he would be in LA in three weeks, annoying people "and diggin' >>>>> Marilyn >>>>> Monroe up". >>>>> >>>>> Mr Bryan told the newspaper that he was questioned for five hours about >>>>> his Twitter messages. >>>>> >>>>> 'Tweeter account' >>>>> >>>>> After the interview, Homeland Security's reported: "Mr Bryan confirmed >>>>> that he had posted on his Tweeter website account that he was coming >>>>> to the >>>>> United States to dig up the grave of Marilyn Monroe. >>>>> >>>>> "Also on his tweeter account Mr Bryan posted he was coming to destroy >>>>> America." >>>>> >>>>> Paul Chambers was fined after posting a message about Robin Hood >>>>> Airport >>>>> >>>>> The US Customs and Border Protection agency said in a statement that it >>>>> tried to maintain a balance between "securing our borders while >>>>> facilitating the high volume of legitimate trade and travel that >>>>> crosses >>>>> our borders every day". >>>>> >>>>> It added: "We strive to achieve that balance and show the world that >>>>> the >>>>> United States is a welcoming nation." >>>>> >>>>> Mr Bryan is not the only person to suffer from a misjudged tweet. In >>>>> January 2010, Paul Chambers tweeted that he would blow snow-affected >>>>> Robin >>>>> Hood Airport in Doncaster "sky high!" if it was not reopened in time >>>>> for >>>>> him to see his girlfriend. >>>>> >>>>> He was fined £385 plus £2,600 in costs - a sum which actor Stephen Fry >>>>> offered to pay on Mr Chambers' 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 14:41:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 08:41:49 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominees [Message to List from Co-Coordinator] Message-ID: 2nd February, 2012 *"Without Prejudice"* Dear All, Kindly note that I have submitted the list of Nominees that were furnished to us by NomCom. I enclose a copy of the letter that was sent to inform the Hon. Under-Secretary General of the Nominees. I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people are disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom have made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their report once finalised will be published on the IGC website. For the record, the Coordinators did not interfere with the selection process. There were some excellent candidates that did not make the final list and I would encourage you to please try again. It *may* also be useful in the future for the list to actively develop criteria for selection including guidelines so that the process can be improved. The guidelines could include things like:- - considerations; - timelines for submission; etc For now, I would like to congratulation the Nominees and wish them the best of luck. Thank you NomCom for the work and we look forward to your report. The Workspace is also open for the list to start giving feedback on things that the MAG should consider before their meeting this month. Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jacqueline Morris Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM Subject: MAG Nominees To: Izumi AIZU , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> The final list. Can you forward to whomever it needs to be? The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter to Under -Secretary General from IGC.doc Type: application/msword Size: 32768 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: William Drake Submission MAG.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 62034 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Robert Guerra Submission MAG.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 46582 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Michael Gurstein Submission MAG.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 62091 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Izumi Aizu Submission MAG.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 56231 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Fatima Cambronero Submission MAG.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 59089 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 16:48:09 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:48:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominees [Message to List from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A bit late to submit my submission but was delayed by long electricity outages here in Pakistan but still submitting before the deadline. On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > 2nd February, 2012 > > "Without Prejudice" > > Dear All, > > Kindly note that I have submitted the list of Nominees that were furnished > to us by NomCom. I enclose a copy of the letter that was sent to inform the > Hon. Under-Secretary General of the Nominees. > > I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy > process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people are > disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom have > made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their report once > finalised will be published on the IGC website. > > For the record, the Coordinators did not interfere with the selection > process. There were some excellent candidates that did not make the final > list and I would encourage you to please try again. It may also be useful in > the future for the list to actively develop criteria for selection including > guidelines so that the process can be improved.  The guidelines could > include things like:- > > considerations; > timelines for submission; etc > > > For now, I would like to congratulation the Nominees and wish them the best > of luck. Thank you NomCom for the work and we look forward to your report. > > The Workspace is also open for the list to start giving feedback on things > that the MAG should consider before their meeting this month. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jacqueline Morris > Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM > Subject: MAG Nominees > To: Izumi AIZU , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > > The final list. > Can you forward to whomever it needs to be? > The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. > > Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) -  Uganda > Izumi AIZU (Mr) -  Japan > Michael Gurstein (Mr)  - Canada > Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > > Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) -  Pakistan > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and > Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Internet Governance Advisor ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Fouad Bajwa Submission MAG.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 47773 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 Feb 1 19:13:26 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:13:26 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominees [Message to List from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To be precise, the deadline was 31st January 2012 which means that we were late in submitting these to UNDESA. On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > A bit late to submit my submission but was delayed by long electricity > outages here in Pakistan but still submitting before the deadline. > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > 2nd February, 2012 > > > > "Without Prejudice" > > > > Dear All, > > > > Kindly note that I have submitted the list of Nominees that were > furnished > > to us by NomCom. I enclose a copy of the letter that was sent to inform > the > > Hon. Under-Secretary General of the Nominees. > > > > I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy > > process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people > are > > disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom have > > made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their report > once > > finalised will be published on the IGC website. > > > > For the record, the Coordinators did not interfere with the selection > > process. There were some excellent candidates that did not make the final > > list and I would encourage you to please try again. It may also be > useful in > > the future for the list to actively develop criteria for selection > including > > guidelines so that the process can be improved. The guidelines could > > include things like:- > > > > considerations; > > timelines for submission; etc > > > > > > For now, I would like to congratulation the Nominees and wish them the > best > > of luck. Thank you NomCom for the work and we look forward to your > report. > > > > The Workspace is also open for the list to start giving feedback on > things > > that the MAG should consider before their meeting this month. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Jacqueline Morris > > Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM > > Subject: MAG Nominees > > To: Izumi AIZU , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > > > > > > The final list. > > Can you forward to whomever it needs to be? > > The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. > > > > Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > > Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > > Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > > Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > > Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > > Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > > > > Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > > > > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and > > Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Internet Governance Advisor > ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 19:31:48 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:01:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> Message-ID: <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions below. Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its processes must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. Things like: we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and perhaps the list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all developments, ...... For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the past). Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. And in the civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very live and dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At times, like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the single point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to live up to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am really not sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected. It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements we have been seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach effort, broad basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we need to practise what we preach. Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning and use of having candidates submit their information in the 'required' format after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required information supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of nominees? There a few other points I will like to make, but a little later... parminder On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Good names all. > > But, > > What process was used? > Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? > Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted on the web site anywhere? > Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? > > In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in detail. Did I miss that? > > The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best > The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks that even further. > > > avri > > On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > >> Dear All, >> >> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as follows: >> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda >> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan >> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada >> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian& European (Spain) >> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) >> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina >> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan >> >> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their information in via the required template would mean that their names would not be sent. >> >> Kind Regards >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. >> >> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential candidates to submit their information in the template shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the information submitted in required format could mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. >> >> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 19:36:09 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:36:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominees [Message to List from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, Chengetai is travelling on a mission to Beirut so I think these were to go late anyways! On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > To be precise, the deadline was 31st January 2012 which means that we were > late in submitting these to UNDESA. > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> A bit late to submit my submission but was delayed by long electricity >> outages here in Pakistan but still submitting before the deadline. >> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > 2nd February, 2012 >> > >> > "Without Prejudice" >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Kindly note that I have submitted the list of Nominees that were >> > furnished >> > to us by NomCom. I enclose a copy of the letter that was sent to inform >> > the >> > Hon. Under-Secretary General of the Nominees. >> > >> > I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy >> > process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people >> > are >> > disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom >> > have >> > made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their report >> > once >> > finalised will be published on the IGC website. >> > >> > For the record, the Coordinators did not interfere with the selection >> > process. There were some excellent candidates that did not make the >> > final >> > list and I would encourage you to please try again. It may also be >> > useful in >> > the future for the list to actively develop criteria for selection >> > including >> > guidelines so that the process can be improved.  The guidelines could >> > include things like:- >> > >> > considerations; >> > timelines for submission; etc >> > >> > >> > For now, I would like to congratulation the Nominees and wish them the >> > best >> > of luck. Thank you NomCom for the work and we look forward to your >> > report. >> > >> > The Workspace is also open for the list to start giving feedback on >> > things >> > that the MAG should consider before their meeting this month. >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > Sala >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Jacqueline Morris >> > Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM >> > Subject: MAG Nominees >> > To: Izumi AIZU , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> > >> > >> > >> > The final list. >> > Can you forward to whomever it needs to be? >> > The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. >> > >> > Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) -  Uganda >> > Izumi AIZU (Mr) -  Japan >> > Michael Gurstein (Mr)  - Canada >> > Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) >> > Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) >> > Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina >> > >> > Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) -  Pakistan >> > >> > >> > Jacqueline A. Morris >> > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and >> > Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > >> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> Internet Governance Advisor >> ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 19:41:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:41:11 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:31 PM, parminder wrote: > ** > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and support, > I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions below. > > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its processes must > be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe process's sake. > I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of openness (proactive > and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort etc that is required > for the nomination/ election activity. Things like: we need to make > repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to nominate themselves and > others, pulbicize the process and perhaps the list of nomcom members as > well, make active out reach to various CS entities inviting nomination, > keeping the list posted of all developments, ...... > > This is why I have made the suggestion that we may need to develop clear guidelines. Having been said, the NomCom have also been asked to prepare a Report of their Selection Process. > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the IGF > secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees for IGC > nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the past). > Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the final list in > this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. And in the civil society space > legitimacy building and losing is a very live and dynamic process. Every > single act adds or takes away from it. At times, like for the WG on IGF > improvements, IGC has been considered the single point of CS contact and > representivity. We need to work hard to live up to such a high > responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am really not sure if we did in > this case, though I am happy to be corrected. > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements we have been > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach effort, broad > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we need to > practise what we preach. > > Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning and use > of having candidates submit their information in the 'required' format > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required information > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of nominees? > > For the record, when the information was first published on the governance site through an email that was forwarded from Avri to the List, the template was attached within the message from the Under Secretary General and the guidelines were also published on the IGF site. All nominees have to exercise their own due diligence and need to ensure that care is taken to read the instructions. All those submitting nominations also need to do their due diligence. Kindly note that as co-coordinator, my involvement came after the list was forwarded to me to send but noticing that there were material deviations from the instructions from UNDESA through the UN IGF Secretariat, I asked those selected to tailor their submissions in the required template. > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little later... > parminder > > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Good names all. > > But, > > What process was used? > Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? > Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted on the web site anywhere? > Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? > > In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in detail. Did I miss that? > > The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best > The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks that even further. > > > avri > > On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as follows: > • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > > However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their information in via the required template would mean that their names would not be sent. > > Kind Regards > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > > In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential candidates to submit their information in the template shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the information submitted in required format could mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. > > Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 19:44:25 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:44:25 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominees [Message to List from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Fouad, Yes, they are convening for the Arab IGF. The issue however is not whether Chengetai is present to receive it. The issue is compliance with the deadline which is something that as a list we can work towards improvement. These are all learning curbs and as long as we learn to prepare ourselves better. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Sala, > > Chengetai is travelling on a mission to Beirut so I think these were > to go late anyways! > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > To be precise, the deadline was 31st January 2012 which means that we > were > > late in submitting these to UNDESA. > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > >> > >> A bit late to submit my submission but was delayed by long electricity > >> outages here in Pakistan but still submitting before the deadline. > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> wrote: > >> > 2nd February, 2012 > >> > > >> > "Without Prejudice" > >> > > >> > Dear All, > >> > > >> > Kindly note that I have submitted the list of Nominees that were > >> > furnished > >> > to us by NomCom. I enclose a copy of the letter that was sent to > inform > >> > the > >> > Hon. Under-Secretary General of the Nominees. > >> > > >> > I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy > >> > process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people > >> > are > >> > disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom > >> > have > >> > made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their > report > >> > once > >> > finalised will be published on the IGC website. > >> > > >> > For the record, the Coordinators did not interfere with the selection > >> > process. There were some excellent candidates that did not make the > >> > final > >> > list and I would encourage you to please try again. It may also be > >> > useful in > >> > the future for the list to actively develop criteria for selection > >> > including > >> > guidelines so that the process can be improved. The guidelines could > >> > include things like:- > >> > > >> > considerations; > >> > timelines for submission; etc > >> > > >> > > >> > For now, I would like to congratulation the Nominees and wish them the > >> > best > >> > of luck. Thank you NomCom for the work and we look forward to your > >> > report. > >> > > >> > The Workspace is also open for the list to start giving feedback on > >> > things > >> > that the MAG should consider before their meeting this month. > >> > > >> > Kind Regards, > >> > Sala > >> > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> > From: Jacqueline Morris > >> > Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM > >> > Subject: MAG Nominees > >> > To: Izumi AIZU , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > The final list. > >> > Can you forward to whomever it needs to be? > >> > The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. > >> > > >> > Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > >> > Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > >> > Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > >> > Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > >> > Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > >> > Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > >> > > >> > Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > >> > > >> > > >> > Jacqueline A. Morris > >> > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and > >> > Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> > > >> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> > Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> > To be removed from the list, visit: > >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards. > >> -------------------------- > >> Fouad Bajwa > >> Internet Governance Advisor > >> ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher > >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > >> MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 1 20:06:37 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:06:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So far, for the MAG meeting we have: Avri and Robert coming to Geneva. I will arrive late Monday. I was hoping to have some physical meeting to connect MAG and CSTD meetings. Robert, when are you leaving Geneva on 17 th, Friday? If you could stay till say noon or so, could we have some sort of "wrap-up" meeting Friday? If so I can ask Diplo for their room and hopefully to make remote Skype participation. Other than that, though it might be short, we could have a meeting around 9 am on the 14th before the MAG meeting opens. izumi 2012/1/27 Robert Guerra : > Izumi, > > Short note to let you and the rest of the list know that I'll be in Geneva > for the MAG consultation. > > Just arranging my logistics now. I'll likely arrive on the 13th and fly out > on the 17th. > > regards > > Robert > > On 2012-01-26, at 8:55 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Sorry, I sent to the old list ;-). > > Here again, > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:07:20 +0900 > Subject: MAG and CSTD WG meetings > To: Governance List > Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Dear list, > > As you may all know, there will be IGF open consultation and MAG > meeting in February, > followed by CSTD WG on IGF improvement the week after. > > MAG and open consultation meetings will be held on Feb 14-16 while > the CSTD WG (closed meeting) on Feb 20-22. > > We would like to know who are planning to participate in the MAG > consultation > meeting and then to plan some kind of "bridge" to receive inputs from these > members to be fed into CSTD WG meeting. > > The CSTD WG meeting itself is a "closed" one, and five civil society > members, > Anriette, Marilia, Wolfgang, Parminder and myself plan to participate > that meeting > (for some members, pending for travel fund). > > So, please indicate if you are planning to come to Geneva for MAG open > consultation meeting and then let'e develop the work plan. > > best, > > izumi > > > > -- > > 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 > > --                         >> 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 20:10:12 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:10:12 +0500 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominees [Message to List from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: True but two situations here: 1. Such processes should be attempted to be completed at least 2 days before deadlines by our committees despite the challenges are real that NomCom may have witnessed. 2. 12 Hour Deadlines are not conducive for everyone, especially for developing country regions. The electricity at my end has been returning after 3-4 hours and after half an hour of light, it is gone again. This means its a challenge to even charge my laptop and I was communicating with you over a 2 inch cell phone screen. 3. We will raise these issues that ample time should be given and holiday seasons respected, during the upcoming MAG meeting as well to allow a good amount of time with well before intimations. Best Fouad On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Fouad, > > Yes, they are convening for the Arab IGF. The issue however is not whether > Chengetai is present to receive it. The issue is compliance with the > deadline which is something that as a list we can work towards improvement. > These are all learning curbs and as long as we learn to prepare ourselves > better. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Dear Sala, >> >> Chengetai is travelling on a mission to Beirut so I think these were >> to go late anyways! >> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > To be precise, the deadline was 31st January 2012 which means that we >> > were >> > late in submitting these to UNDESA. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Fouad Bajwa >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> A bit late to submit my submission but was delayed by long electricity >> >> outages here in Pakistan but still submitting before the deadline. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> wrote: >> >> > 2nd February, 2012 >> >> > >> >> > "Without Prejudice" >> >> > >> >> > Dear All, >> >> > >> >> > Kindly note that I have submitted the list of Nominees that were >> >> > furnished >> >> > to us by NomCom. I enclose a copy of the letter that was sent to >> >> > inform >> >> > the >> >> > Hon. Under-Secretary General of the Nominees. >> >> > >> >> > I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy >> >> > process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and >> >> > people >> >> > are >> >> > disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom >> >> > have >> >> > made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their >> >> > report >> >> > once >> >> > finalised will be published on the IGC website. >> >> > >> >> > For the record, the Coordinators did not interfere with the selection >> >> > process. There were some excellent candidates that did not make the >> >> > final >> >> > list and I would encourage you to please try again. It may also be >> >> > useful in >> >> > the future for the list to actively develop criteria for selection >> >> > including >> >> > guidelines so that the process can be improved.  The guidelines could >> >> > include things like:- >> >> > >> >> > considerations; >> >> > timelines for submission; etc >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > For now, I would like to congratulation the Nominees and wish them >> >> > the >> >> > best >> >> > of luck. Thank you NomCom for the work and we look forward to your >> >> > report. >> >> > >> >> > The Workspace is also open for the list to start giving feedback on >> >> > things >> >> > that the MAG should consider before their meeting this month. >> >> > >> >> > Kind Regards, >> >> > Sala >> >> > >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> > From: Jacqueline Morris >> >> > Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:00 PM >> >> > Subject: MAG Nominees >> >> > To: Izumi AIZU , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > The final list. >> >> > Can you forward to whomever it needs to be? >> >> > The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. >> >> > >> >> > Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) -  Uganda >> >> > Izumi AIZU (Mr) -  Japan >> >> > Michael Gurstein (Mr)  - Canada >> >> > Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) >> >> > Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) >> >> > Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina >> >> > >> >> > Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) -  Pakistan >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Jacqueline A. Morris >> >> > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible >> >> > and >> >> > Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> > >> >> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> > Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> > >> >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> > >> >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards. >> >> -------------------------- >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> Internet Governance Advisor >> >> ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher >> >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >> >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: >> >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> >> MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > >> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Feb 1 20:11:31 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 10:11:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Upcoming IGF Open Consultation & MAG meeting / Shall we start the conversation.. In-Reply-To: <23B4807F-9287-4BD6-A558-0D79DBC4187F@privaterra.org> References: <23B4807F-9287-4BD6-A558-0D79DBC4187F@privaterra.org> Message-ID: I am also curious how the work of CSTD WG on IGF improvement will be (or not to be) reflected in the AZ IGF. TIme-wise, CSTD WG will finalize the report in Feb, but then it will be submitted to CSTD at their May annual session, then going to ECOSOC. So there will be little chance of being incorporated into this year's IGF, spending two years out of five. Of course, we still can hope that certain recommendations can be reflected into this year's IGF, if MAG members take them into consideration ahead of CSTD process. Just one thought, izumi 2012/2/2 Robert Guerra : > > > On 2012-02-01, at 9:38 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message > , at > 19:33:13 on Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Adam Peake writes > > Think the more important questions are do we have any comment on the > > Nairobi meeting and process (what can be improved etc), and what we > > think the main themes for the year should be.  Those are the main > > issues for the meeting. > > > Indeed, bit I'm concerned we don't seem to be able to answer even the simple > and less important questions. (And also, what's happening about the MAG > nominations). > > > There was a public call for comments that concluded on the 27th of Jan. A > synthesis document will be produced ahead of the consultation. > > That being said, would be great if those on this list who sent in written > submissions could share them so we could all discuss... > > About Azerbaijan and the country's rights record, asking about any > > provisions the UN's made to ensure freedom of speech, > > participation/entry to the IGF etc might be helpful. > > > The presentation of which might depend on whether Azerbaijan is chairing the > meeting (and failing that, whether they are going to be present). > > > I take it as a given that AZ will be represented at the meeting. The > question is - will they chair the meeting ? > > Robert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 20:17:13 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:17:13 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Izumi, I can be added to the list. I am still trying to find funds for expense in Geneva as there continues to be no support for developing region participants from throughout last year to current year. The situation I have heard from elsewhere being, IGF possibly has limited funds for its operations.......funds not coming in from donors, and then the confusion everyone witnessed during the CSTD Improvements meetings. I would like to thank colleagues and friends that have helped me to raise funds, support my accommodation as well as support expenses in Geneva that enable me to continue participating in these meetings but this both is challenging, very hard and continues to raise questions as more people get confused with IGF's sustainability. I read the similar challenges have been faced by our developing country members participating in the CSTD. But still, I will fly there, figuring out the rest of the parts of the visit. -- foo On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > So far, for the MAG meeting we have: > > Avri and Robert coming to Geneva. > I will arrive late Monday. > > I was hoping to have some physical meeting to connect > MAG and CSTD meetings. > > Robert, when are you leaving Geneva on 17 th, Friday? > If you could stay till say noon or so, could we have some sort > of "wrap-up" meeting Friday? > > If so I can ask Diplo for their room and hopefully to make > remote Skype participation. > > Other than that, though it might be short, we could have a meeting > around 9 am on the 14th before the MAG meeting opens. > > izumi > > 2012/1/27 Robert Guerra : >> Izumi, >> >> Short note to let you and the rest of the list know that I'll be in Geneva >> for the MAG consultation. >> >> Just arranging my logistics now. I'll likely arrive on the 13th and fly out >> on the 17th. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> On 2012-01-26, at 8:55 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Sorry, I sent to the old list ;-). >> >> Here again, >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Izumi AIZU >> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:07:20 +0900 >> Subject: MAG and CSTD WG meetings >> To: Governance List >> Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> >> Dear list, >> >> As you may all know, there will be IGF open consultation and MAG >> meeting in February, >> followed by CSTD WG on IGF improvement the week after. >> >> MAG and open consultation meetings will be held on Feb 14-16 while >> the CSTD WG (closed meeting) on Feb 20-22. >> >> We would like to know who are planning to participate in the MAG >> consultation >> meeting and then to plan some kind of "bridge" to receive inputs from these >> members to be fed into CSTD WG meeting. >> >> The CSTD WG meeting itself is a "closed" one, and five civil society >> members, >> Anriette, Marilia, Wolfgang, Parminder and myself plan to participate >> that meeting >> (for some members, pending for travel fund). >> >> So, please indicate if you are planning to come to Geneva for MAG open >> consultation meeting and then let'e develop the work plan. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> > > > > -- >                         >> Izumi Aizu << >           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >                                   Japan >                                  * * * * * >                               www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Feb 1 21:25:08 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 21:25:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3542AF8F-B420-4468-BC02-3B6EB5296DFF@privaterra.org> Izumi, On 2012-02-01, at 8:06 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > So far, for the MAG meeting we have: > > Avri and Robert coming to Geneva. > I will arrive late Monday. > I get in on Sunday. > I was hoping to have some physical meeting to connect > MAG and CSTD meetings. > > Robert, when are you leaving Geneva on 17 th, Friday? > If you could stay till say noon or so, could we have some sort > of "wrap-up" meeting Friday? > My return flight departs around noon on the 17th. Thus we could meet in the morning, but we'd need to start early :) > If so I can ask Diplo for their room and hopefully to make remote Skype participation. > > Other than that, though it might be short, we could have a meeting > around 9 am on the 14th before the MAG meeting opens. > Meeting just before the start of the meeting on the 14th would be a good idea. Robert > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 1 21:34:57 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 21:34:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: <3542AF8F-B420-4468-BC02-3B6EB5296DFF@privaterra.org> References: <3542AF8F-B420-4468-BC02-3B6EB5296DFF@privaterra.org> Message-ID: fyi I arrive sunday 12th and leave Sat 18th. I am hoping to get a few meeting in while there on various aspects of the preparations for the Baku meeting. Will make myself available for both of these. avri (Apologies for this, but: Private message using the IGC Bandwidth - there is someone from UNU who I have promised to let know when I was coming into Geneva again, but I have lost the email contact and most regretfully forgotten the name. But if you are on this list, feel free contact me off list.) On 1 Feb 2012, at 21:25, Robert Guerra wrote: > Izumi, > > On 2012-02-01, at 8:06 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> So far, for the MAG meeting we have: >> >> Avri and Robert coming to Geneva. >> I will arrive late Monday. >> > I get in on Sunday. > >> I was hoping to have some physical meeting to connect >> MAG and CSTD meetings. >> >> Robert, when are you leaving Geneva on 17 th, Friday? >> If you could stay till say noon or so, could we have some sort >> of "wrap-up" meeting Friday? >> > > My return flight departs around noon on the 17th. Thus we could meet in the morning, but we'd need to start early :) > >> If so I can ask Diplo for their room and hopefully to make remote Skype participation. >> >> Other than that, though it might be short, we could have a meeting >> around 9 am on the 14th before the MAG meeting opens. >> > Meeting just before the start of the meeting on the 14th would be a good idea. > > Robert >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed Feb 1 21:45:47 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:45:47 +1300 Subject: [governance] Complaints on MAG Selection Message-ID: Dear All, I acknowledge that I am in receipt of complaints in relation to MAG Selection on the issue of "eligibility". Kindly note that this is a public acknowledgment that the matter is under consideration and we will revert in due course. I am currently awaiting for MAG NomCom to send me their report before any assessment and discussions commence. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Wed Feb 1 22:02:48 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (nhklein) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:02:48 +0700 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominees [Message to List from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F29FCD8.90400@gmx.net> Thanks, Fouad, for raising also "technicalities" at your end. I know well that some - far away - people just cannot understand what it actually means not to have regular electricity. Just to share a memory: when I operated the only ISP in Cambodia early 1994 to mid 1997, this was my electricity supply for the system, which I put together from what I could find on the local market: Japanese 24 Volt DC truck battery Thai charger from 220 AC when we had public electricity supply US inverter 24 V DC to 110 V AC (specially imported) Vietnamese transformer 110 V AC to 220 V AC home grown 220 V AC - mostly enough capacity, but not always - until the public electricity started again Sorry, a bit off list - but it is a plea to all who do not have regular electricity disruptions, to understand what different economic/technological conditions can mean. Norbert Klein On 02/02/2012 08:10 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > True but two situations here: > > 1. Such processes should be attempted to be completed at least 2 days > before deadlines by our committees despite the challenges are real > that NomCom may have witnessed. > > 2. 12 Hour Deadlines are not conducive for everyone, especially for > developing country regions. The electricity at my end has been > returning after 3-4 hours and after half an hour of light, it is gone > again. This means its a challenge to even charge my laptop and I was > communicating with you over a 2 inch cell phone screen. > > 3. We will raise these issues that ample time should be given and > holiday seasons respected, during the upcoming MAG meeting as well to > allow a good amount of time with well before intimations. > > Best > > Fouad -- In April 2011, I started a new blog: ...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia http://www.thinking21.org/ continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia. This is my latest posting: Council of Ministers and UN Special Expert – continued (29.1.2012) http://www.thinking21.org/?p=708 Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net Phnom Penh / 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 2 01:02:30 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:02:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: References: <3542AF8F-B420-4468-BC02-3B6EB5296DFF@privaterra.org> Message-ID: I'll also be in Geneva. Look forward to CS discussions. Adam On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > fyi > > I arrive sunday 12th and leave Sat 18th. > I am hoping to get a few meeting in while there on various aspects of the preparations for the Baku meeting. > > Will make myself available for both of these. > > avri > > > (Apologies for this, but:  Private message using the IGC Bandwidth - there is someone from UNU who I have promised to let know when I was coming into Geneva again, but I have lost the email contact and most regretfully forgotten the name.  But if you are on this list, feel free contact me off list.) > > On 1 Feb 2012, at 21:25, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Izumi, >> >> On 2012-02-01, at 8:06 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> So far, for the MAG meeting we have: >>> >>> Avri and Robert coming to Geneva. >>> I will arrive late Monday. >>> >> I get in on Sunday. >> >>> I was hoping to have some physical meeting to connect >>> MAG and CSTD meetings. >>> >>> Robert, when are you leaving Geneva on 17 th, Friday? >>> If you could stay till say noon or so, could we have some sort >>> of "wrap-up" meeting Friday? >>> >> >> My return flight departs around noon on the 17th. Thus we could meet in the morning, but we'd need to start early :) >> >>> If so I can ask Diplo for their room and hopefully to make remote Skype participation. >>> >>> Other than that, though it might be short, we could have a meeting >>> around 9 am on the 14th before the MAG meeting opens. >>> >> Meeting just before the start of the meeting on the 14th would be a good idea. >> >> Robert >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Feb 2 03:13:43 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:13:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: References: <3542AF8F-B420-4468-BC02-3B6EB5296DFF@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <879A8333-1349-4DE1-9223-FFD64D94457F@uzh.ch> Hi On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > I'll also be in Geneva. And I live here. My thanks to the nomcom for including me. Of course, since IGC and APC both nominated me three times prior, there's obviously no guarantee that UN NY will change its apparent practice of reserving any slots for US citizens for TC and business, but it's nice to be nominated anyway. On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:31 AM, parminder wrote: > I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. I agree with others there should be clearer procedures and reporting requirements for IGC's nomcoms, as there are inter alia for ICANN's. This has been a recurrent issue not only with the selection of MAG candidates, but also the WGIGF and if I recall correctly WGIG... > Things like: we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to nominate themselves and others, There were messages on the list from Jacqueline, Sala, I believe Izumi, maybe others…? Maybe more of an ongoing thread would have been desirable…. > pulbicize the process and perhaps the list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all developments, ...… Sure > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the past). Valeria can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe APC did submit these to IGC and report them on the list. They included Africa: Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications, South Africa Asia: Shahzad Ahmad, BytesForAll, Pakistan LAC: Magaly Pazello, Center on Communication and Emergence, Brazil; Carlos Afonso, Instituto Nupef, Brazil North America and Europe: William Drake, University of Zurich, Switzerland; David Souter, ict Development Associates, United Kingdom Speaking of transparency, it would also be nice to have some idea how UN NY makes its selections, but we've been saying that for six years to no end… Best, Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Thu Feb 2 03:21:30 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 03:21:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: <879A8333-1349-4DE1-9223-FFD64D94457F@uzh.ch> References: <3542AF8F-B420-4468-BC02-3B6EB5296DFF@privaterra.org> <879A8333-1349-4DE1-9223-FFD64D94457F@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, You are right. We presented APC's nominations to the NomCom for consideration on Jan 20th. Valeria On 02/02/2012, at 3:13, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> I'll also be in Geneva. > > And I live here. > > My thanks to the nomcom for including me. Of course, since IGC and > APC both nominated me three times prior, there's obviously no > guarantee that UN NY will change its apparent practice of reserving > any slots for US citizens for TC and business, but it's nice to be > nominated anyway. > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:31 AM, parminder wrote: > >> I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of openness >> (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort etc >> that is required for the nomination/ election activity. > > I agree with others there should be clearer procedures and reporting > requirements for IGC's nomcoms, as there are inter alia for > ICANN's. This has been a recurrent issue not only with the > selection of MAG candidates, but also the WGIGF and if I recall > correctly WGIG... > >> Things like: we need to make repeated calls for nomination, >> encourage people to nominate themselves and others, > > There were messages on the list from Jacqueline, Sala, I believe > Izumi, maybe others…? Maybe more of an ongoing thread would have > been desirable…. > >> pulbicize the process and perhaps the list of nomcom members as >> well, make active out reach to various CS entities inviting >> nomination, keeping the list posted of all developments, ...… > > Sure >> >> For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to >> the IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their >> nominees for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has >> happened in the past). > > Valeria can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe APC did submit > these to IGC and report them on the list. They included > > Africa: Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive > Communications, South Africa > Asia: Shahzad Ahmad, BytesForAll, Pakistan > LAC: Magaly Pazello, Center on Communication and Emergence, Brazil; > Carlos Afonso, Instituto Nupef, Brazil > North America and Europe: William Drake, University of Zurich, > Switzerland; David Souter, ict Development Associates, United Kingdom > > Speaking of transparency, it would also be nice to have some idea > how UN NY makes its selections, but we've been saying that for six > years to no end… > > Best, > > Bill > > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 2 03:46:29 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:46:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Acta goes too far, says MEP Message-ID: <4F2A4D65.6000801@gmail.com> Acta goes too far, says MEP Kader Arif, the lead Acta negotiator in the European Parliament, says Acta potentially cuts access to lifesaving generic drugs and restricts online freedom * Charles Arthur * guardian.co.uk , Wednesday 1 February 2012 14.39 GMT * Article history Kader Arif French MEP Kader Arif says Acta threatens online freedom and access to the use of generic versions of drugs for treating illnesses. Photograph: Lionel Bonaventure/AFP The French MEP who resigned his position in charge of negotiating the international Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta) has said it "goes too far" by potentially cutting access to lifesaving generic drugs and restricting internet freedom. In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Kader Arif -- a member of the European parliament's international trade group, who was the lead negotiator over Acta -- said that despite talks over the agreement having begun in 2007, "the European parliament, which represents the rights of the people, had no access to this mandate, neither had it information of the position defended by the commission or the demands of the other parties to the agreement". Arif resigned in protest on 26 January as the EU signed the treaty, saying that he wished to "denounce in the strongest manner the process that led to the signing of this agreement: no association of civil society [and] lack of transparency from the beginning". He said that it now threatens online freedom, access to the use of generic versions of drugs for treating illnesses, and could potentially mean that someone crossing a border who has a single song or film on their computer could face criminal charges. Asked what he thought European citizens should do, Mr Arif said: "Showing that there is interest and concern about this agreement is the best way of creating a real public debate, which was never possible until now because of the lack of transparency on this dossier. Especially if the timeframe is short, raising awareness of members of parliament will be crucial. And because Acta is a mixed agreement, it will have to be ratified both by the European parliament and by every member state of the union, so there is also an opportunity to organise debates at the national level." He says that it is now impossible to renegotiate the agreement because the 11 key parties to it concluded their discussions on 1 October 2011: "the European commission negotiated it on behalf of the EU, on the basis of a mandate given by the member states in 2007." That means, he says, that "at this stage one can only accept or reject the agreement -- no change of the text is possible. If the right wing of the European parliament had not imposed such a tight calendar, the members of the European parliament could have drafted an interim report, which would have put conditionalities to the ratification of the agreement, by giving recommendations to the commission and member states on how to implement it. But this is no longer a feasible option." "The title of this agreement is misleading, because it's not only about counterfeiting, it's about the violation of intellectual property rights," he told the Guardian. "There is a major difference between these two concepts." Acta has triggered public protests in a number of European and other countries , as well as online attacks by the hacking collective Anonymous. The US, EU member states, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and a number of other countries have signed it, although none has yet ratified it in national legislation. The agreement would create an international framework and set of standards for a voluntary legal regime to enforce intellectual property rights across national boundaries. Arif said one example illustrates this difference particularly well -- the case of generic medicines. "Generic medicines are not counterfeited medicines; they are not the fake version of a drug; they are a generic version of a drug, produced either because the patent on the original drug has expired, or because a country has to put in place public health policies," he said. A number of countries such as India and African nations have sought to use generic versions of drugs for infections such as HIV, which has often been resisted by pharmaceutical companies. Under Acta, Arif fears such countries would not have the same freedom to determine their own actions. "There are international agreements, such as the Trips agreement , which foresees this last possibility," he said. "They're particularly important for developing countries which cannot afford to pay for patented HIV drugs, for example. "The problem with Acta is that, by focusing on the fight against violation of intellectual property rights in general, it treats a generic drug just as a counterfeited drug. This means the patent holder can stop the shipping of the drugs to a developing country, seize the cargo and even order the destruction of the drugs as a preventive measure." He thinks that is a key flaw: "Acta also limits the flexibilities listed in the Trips agreements to support developing countries in need of generic drugs. When the question of finding the right equilibrium between protection of intellectual property rights and protection of final users is so crucial, Acta appears to be very unbalanced in favour of patent holders. This is one of the major problems with the agreement." Internet freedoms could also be under threat if Acta is ratified in its present form, he says. "The chapter on internet is particularly worrying as some experts consider it reintroduces the concept of liability of internet providers, which is clearly excluded in the European legislation." That could make ISPs, who provide internet access, liable for users' illicit file-sharing. Arif also expressed concern that there could be more intrusive checks at borders to fight counterfeiting. "I see a great risk concerning checks at borders, and the agreement foresees criminal sanctions against people using counterfeited products as a commercial activity," he said. "This is relevant for the trade of fake shoes or bags for example, but what about data downloaded from the internet? If a customs officer considers that you may set up a commercial activity just by having one movie or one song on your computer, which is true in theory, you could face criminal sanctions. "I don't want people to have their laptops or MP3 players searched at borders, there needs to be a clearer distinction between normal citizens and counterfeiters which trade fake products as a commercial activity. Acta goes too far." The text of the finalised treaty (PDF) has now been made public, and the European commission has begun to try to explain how Acta would work. It has also published a document called 10 Myths about Acta , asserting that the public was informed "since the launch of the negotiations"; that it is drafted "in very flexible terms" and that "safeguards and exceptions under EU law or under the Trips agreement remain fully preserved". It also insists that "Acta is about tackling large-scale illegal activity ... there is a provision on Acta specifically exempting travellers from checks if the infringing goods are of a non-commercial nature and not part of large-scale trafficking". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kader-Arif-007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 37149 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Feb 2 05:52:01 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 06:22:01 -0430 Subject: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings @Diplo office Message-ID: Hi Izumi and everyone, As always, Diplo welcomes you to Geneva (via Venezuela) and if Izumi contacts Jovan directly, arrangements can be made to use the Diplo offices for a meeting. I will be watching you remotely, and always appreciate a parallel Skype group for comments. Thanks everyone. Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* On 1 February 2012 20:36, Izumi AIZU wrote: > So far, for the MAG meeting we have: > > Avri and Robert coming to Geneva. > I will arrive late Monday. > > I was hoping to have some physical meeting to connect > MAG and CSTD meetings. > > Robert, when are you leaving Geneva on 17 th, Friday? > If you could stay till say noon or so, could we have some sort > of "wrap-up" meeting Friday? > > If so I can ask Diplo for their room and hopefully to make > remote Skype participation. > > Other than that, though it might be short, we could have a meeting > around 9 am on the 14th before the MAG meeting opens. > > izumi > > 2012/1/27 Robert Guerra : > > Izumi, > > > > Short note to let you and the rest of the list know that I'll be in > Geneva > > for the MAG consultation. > > > > Just arranging my logistics now. I'll likely arrive on the 13th and fly > out > > on the 17th. > > > > regards > > > > Robert > > > > On 2012-01-26, at 8:55 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > > Sorry, I sent to the old list ;-). > > > > Here again, > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Izumi AIZU > > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:07:20 +0900 > > Subject: MAG and CSTD WG meetings > > To: Governance List > > Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > > > > Dear list, > > > > As you may all know, there will be IGF open consultation and MAG > > meeting in February, > > followed by CSTD WG on IGF improvement the week after. > > > > MAG and open consultation meetings will be held on Feb 14-16 while > > the CSTD WG (closed meeting) on Feb 20-22. > > > > We would like to know who are planning to participate in the MAG > > consultation > > meeting and then to plan some kind of "bridge" to receive inputs from > these > > members to be fed into CSTD WG meeting. > > > > The CSTD WG meeting itself is a "closed" one, and five civil society > > members, > > Anriette, Marilia, Wolfgang, Parminder and myself plan to participate > > that meeting > > (for some members, pending for travel fund). > > > > So, please indicate if you are planning to come to Geneva for MAG open > > consultation meeting and then let'e develop the work plan. > > > > best, > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 2 06:45:01 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:45:01 -0200 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominees [Message to List from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: <4F29FCD8.90400@gmx.net> References: <4F29FCD8.90400@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4F2A773D.6010003@cafonso.ca> I had the privilege to visit our dear compa Norbert in Phnom Penh around that time and testify to the incredible magic he managed to make with those disparate electrical parts to keep the system alive. fraternal regards --c.a. On 02/02/2012 01:02 AM, nhklein wrote: > Thanks, Fouad, > > for raising also "technicalities" at your end. I know well that some - > far away - people just cannot understand what it actually means not to > have regular electricity. > > Just to share a memory: when I operated the only ISP in Cambodia early > 1994 to mid 1997, this was my electricity supply for the system, which I > put together from what I could find on the local market: > > Japanese 24 Volt DC truck battery > Thai charger from 220 AC when we had public electricity supply > US inverter 24 V DC to 110 V AC (specially imported) > Vietnamese transformer 110 V AC to 220 V AC > home grown 220 V AC - mostly enough capacity, but not always - until the > public electricity started again > > Sorry, a bit off list - but it is a plea to all who do not have regular > electricity disruptions, to understand what different > economic/technological conditions can mean. > > > Norbert Klein > > > > On 02/02/2012 08:10 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> True but two situations here: >> >> 1. Such processes should be attempted to be completed at least 2 days >> before deadlines by our committees despite the challenges are real >> that NomCom may have witnessed. >> >> 2. 12 Hour Deadlines are not conducive for everyone, especially for >> developing country regions. The electricity at my end has been >> returning after 3-4 hours and after half an hour of light, it is gone >> again. This means its a challenge to even charge my laptop and I was >> communicating with you over a 2 inch cell phone screen. >> >> 3. We will raise these issues that ample time should be given and >> holiday seasons respected, during the upcoming MAG meeting as well to >> allow a good amount of time with well before intimations. >> >> Best >> >> Fouad > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Feb 2 08:27:21 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:27:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Agenda Africa IP Summit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sangeeta, and all interested colleagues in this summit, It's quite clear that this summit is massive propaganda and lies by a cartel of predators. While there are very few possibilities to influence this juggernaut agenda, it's certainly worth spreading solid information to stimulate the perception by the participants and the media of the delusions instilled by the cartel. Therefore a letter to the summit organizers is certainly a proper initiative. Presumably they are not going to be much impressed, although they could reply with some lip service. Actually, the real target is African people. They need hearing and reading other visions than the cartel spin. But is there adequate material for that purpose ? For a readership not necessarily well seasoned in internet and intellectual property, a text should be short, easily readable, and explicit on messages to be conveyed. The proposed letter does not seem to be well targeted to a large readership. It could be recomposed in 1/3 of the words and carry the same messages in shorter sentences. A preliminary useful step would be to write down in one line each essential message that should not be missed. Cheers - - - On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:58, Sangeeta Shashikant wrote: > Dear All, > > Attached is a draft agenda of the Summit. It is an updated version of > what is available on the US government site. > It is a pretty twisted agenda on IP. > > If you are interested to protest against this Summit, pls do sign onto the > letter we have drafted to WIPO. See below > > Sangeeta > Third World Network > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dear All, > > The US government is planning to hold in April an Africa IP Summit in > partnership with Japan, France, and WIPO. South Africa is hosting this > meeting. The private sector (ICC, BASCAP,Pfizer, Eli Lily et al) is > sponsoring this meeting. > > The main focus of this Summit is enhanced IP protection and > enforcement particularly on counterfeiting and piracy. Clearly this is > a platform for US, Japan France to promote the TRIPS plus plus agendas > seen in ACTA, TPPA, EPA etc, and this Summit will be promoting more > anti-counterfeiting bills in Africa. Many of these provisions are > likely to have a problematic impact on access to medicines. > > If you are interested in more details see the US government site > http://www.cldp.doc.gov/programs/Africa-intellectual-property-forum. > The Commercial Law Department Programme of the US department of > commerce is organising this summit. > > We think it is important to raise some concern over this event. So we > have drafted 2 letters. One addressed to the World Intellectual > Property Organisation WIPO (see below).We have also drafted similar > letter > to South Africa missions in Geneva. > > If you are interested to sign on to these letters, pls send me the > name of your organisation and contact details to > sangeeta at twnetwork.org or ssangeeta at myjaring.net > by Friday, 3rd February. > > Regards > Sangeeta Shashikant > Third World Network > www.twnside.org.sg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 2 08:49:57 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:49:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Agenda Africa IP Summit - 5th Africa Conference on FOSS and the Digital Commons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1328190597.15776.YahooMailNeo@web130103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi people I would rather reserve my comments on the IP summit for now.  But suffice it to say that since South Africa adopted an Open Standards/Open Source policy, there has been a renewed effort on the opposite direction.   Let me use this opportunity to inform of the effective holding of the 5th African Conference on FOSS and the Digital Commons - http://www.idlelo.net Kindly support in whichever way you can. Best regards 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 ________________________________ From: Louis Pouzin (well) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Sangeeta Shashikant Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 1:27 PM Subject: [governance] Agenda Africa IP Summit Hi Sangeeta, and all interested colleagues in this summit, It's quite clear that this summit is massive propaganda and lies by a cartel of predators. While there are very few possibilities to influence this juggernaut agenda, it's certainly worth spreading solid information to stimulate the perception by the participants and the media of the delusions instilled by the cartel. Therefore a letter to the summit organizers is certainly a proper initiative. Presumably they are not going to be much impressed, although they could reply with some lip service. Actually, the real target is African people. They need hearing and reading other visions than the cartel spin. But is there adequate material for that purpose ? For a readership not necessarily well seasoned in internet and intellectual property, a text should be short, easily readable, and explicit on messages to be conveyed. The proposed letter does not seem to be well targeted to a large readership. It could be recomposed in 1/3 of the words and carry the same messages in shorter sentences. A preliminary useful step would be to write down in one line each essential message that should not be missed. Cheers - - - On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:58, Sangeeta Shashikant wrote: Dear All,  > >Attached is a draft agenda of the Summit. It is an updated version  of what is available on the US government site.  >It is a pretty twisted agenda on IP.  > > >If you are interested to protest against this Summit, pls do sign onto the letter we have drafted to WIPO. See below > >Sangeeta >Third World Network >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear All, > > >The US government is planning to hold in April an Africa IP Summit in >partnership with Japan, France, and WIPO. South Africa is hosting this >meeting. The private sector (ICC, BASCAP,Pfizer, Eli Lily et al) is >sponsoring this meeting. > > >The main focus of this Summit is enhanced IP protection and >enforcement particularly on counterfeiting and piracy. Clearly this is >a platform for US, Japan France to promote the TRIPS plus plus agendas >seen in ACTA, TPPA, EPA etc, and this Summit will be promoting more >anti-counterfeiting bills in Africa. Many of these provisions are >likely to have a problematic impact on access to medicines. > > > If you are interested in more details see the US government site >http://www.cldp.doc.gov/programs/Africa-intellectual-property-forum. >The Commercial Law Department Programme of the US department of >commerce is organising this summit. > > >We think it is important to raise some concern over this event. So we >have drafted 2 letters. One addressed to the World Intellectual >Property Organisation WIPO (see below).We have also drafted similar letter >to South Africa missions in Geneva.  > >If you are interested to sign on to these letters, pls send me the >name of your organisation and contact details to >sangeeta at twnetwork.org or ssangeeta at myjaring.net >by Friday, 3rd February. > > >Regards >Sangeeta Shashikant >Third World Network >www.twnside.org.sg > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 2 09:47:54 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 19:47:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominees [Message to List from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: <4F29FCD8.90400@gmx.net> References: <4F29FCD8.90400@gmx.net> Message-ID: Hi Norbort, yes the issues are complex. The prices of such devices especially when the economy is totally in the dirt makes it really hard to manage the kitchen and invest in such solutions. Lets hope for the best. They also shot up the oil prices last night and things are just beyond control......we are an immature democracy but the governance doesn't seem to get its act straight even after completing almost 4 years of government. On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:02 AM, nhklein wrote: > Thanks, Fouad, > > for raising also "technicalities" at your end. I know well that some - far > away - people just cannot understand what it actually means not to have > regular electricity. > > Just to share a memory: when I operated the only ISP in Cambodia early 1994 > to mid 1997, this was my electricity supply for the system, which I put > together from what I could find on the local market: > > Japanese 24 Volt DC truck battery > Thai charger from 220 AC when we had public electricity supply > US inverter 24 V DC to 110 V AC (specially imported) > Vietnamese transformer 110 V AC to 220 V AC > home grown 220 V AC - mostly enough capacity, but not always - until the > public electricity started again > > Sorry, a bit off list - but it is a plea to all who do not have regular > electricity disruptions, to understand what different economic/technological > conditions can mean. > > > Norbert Klein > > > > > On 02/02/2012 08:10 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> True but two situations here: >> >> 1. Such processes should be attempted to be completed at least 2 days >> before deadlines by our committees despite the challenges are real >> that NomCom may have witnessed. >> >> 2. 12 Hour Deadlines are not conducive for everyone, especially for >> developing country regions. The electricity at my end has been >> returning after 3-4 hours and after half an hour of light, it is gone >> again. This means its a challenge to even charge my laptop and I was >> communicating with you over a 2 inch cell phone screen. >> >> 3. We will raise these issues that ample time should be given and >> holiday seasons respected, during the upcoming MAG meeting as well to >> allow a good amount of time with well before intimations. >> >> Best >> >> Fouad > > > -- > In April 2011, I started a new blog: > > ...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia > http://www.thinking21.org/ > > continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia. > This is my latest posting: > > Council of Ministers and UN Special Expert – continued (29.1.2012) > http://www.thinking21.org/?p=708 > > > Norbert Klein > nhklein at gmx.net > Phnom Penh / Cambodia > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Feb 2 12:11:35 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:11:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Public Knowledge's Special 301 petition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F2AC3C7.9010108@gmail.com> All: I thought you might be interested in a call to action Public Knowledge issued today. We are asking people to sign a petition asking the USTR not to blindly do big content's bidding in its Special 301 process. Here is a link to the call to action: http://www.publicknowledge.org/act-now. Here is my blog post providing some background: http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/tell-ustr-not-do-big-content%E2%80%99s-bidding Please feel free to circulate widely. Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative Public Knowledge -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 2 12:33:19 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 17:33:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 16:34:18 on Tue, 31 Jan 2012, jonathan writes >Wouldn't it be odd if the intepretation of a tweet were somehow linked >to the nationality, ethnicity, religion, wealth, etc. of the tweeter? I'd argue that the interpretation strongly depends on the profile of the tweeter. Here's a story from ten years ago with an American President (who can hardly fail to be surrounded by advisers) using a word that's highly offensive elsewhere: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jan/09/usa.matthewengel Whereas the earlier quoted "I could murder an Indian" is accepted in the UK as quite complimentary to their cuisine. Meanwhile, numerous Brits choked on their breakfast earlier this week: -- 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 Thu Feb 2 12:45:46 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 06:45:46 +1300 Subject: [governance] Access Challenges: Internet Governance Message-ID: Dear All, Fouad and Norbert raised an often overlooked and important issue in relation to challenges with Access to the Internet. Over the years we have seen countries around the world offering broadband stimulus in their respective countries, refine policies etc to address the issue of the demand. In the developing world or emerging markets, there are interesting challenges that beset these countries. When natural disasters happen such as the tsunami in American Samoa, the local telcos were not able to handle the volume of calls in and out etc. There was some access to the internet that allowed the world to know of their plight. Similarly when Haiti was beset by the earthquake, it destroyed infrastructure as well. Considering the recent tsunami in Japan and how it cost them $300billion in damages. Thing of developed countries that face similar devastation. There are many countries that struggle with energy grid and we know that to have proper infrastructure one needs energy to drive this aside from transportation. In a country in the Pacific where not too long ago they had just discovered people where mortality rates were extremely low etc. Cutting roads through some of the terrain in PNG is challenging and most Telcos build by transporting equipment through helicopters etc. The additional challenges are land conflicts which can retard development. Whilst Governments are addressing this through policies, it remains a challenge. As the bandwidth consumption is forecasted to grow and clear product lines from Vendors will evolve to be more efficient, developing countries face another challenge being on the receiving end of inefficient products thus perpetuating the cycle of inefficiency. Whilst there are standards and trade laws in place, affordability is a critical issue. Another challenge is preparing ISP Networks to transition to IPv6 and it is good to see how some European countries have encouraged IPv6 Transition through procument policies etc. The IGF has and continues to be an excellent model in sharing lessons and experiences and it is always great to see how countries grow their broadband networks, the types of stimuli that they offered, the mistakes that they made. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 2 13:18:10 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:18:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caution on Twitter urged as tourists barred from US In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Definitely straying from the point but I can't resist the temptation - I am very strongly reminded of a Lower 6 class on Wordsworth's Prelude (a book length poem about the poet's childhood) when one of the boys, full of indignation, shot his hand up and sprang to his feet " Miss, Miss - Wordsworth said he had *intercourse *with Nature." Naughty Wordsworth :-) Deirdre On 2 February 2012 13:33, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , > at 16:34:18 on Tue, 31 Jan 2012, jonathan > writes > >Wouldn't it be odd if the intepretation of a tweet were somehow linked > >to the nationality, ethnicity, religion, wealth, etc. of the tweeter? > > I'd argue that the interpretation strongly depends on the profile of the > tweeter. Here's a story from ten years ago with an American President > (who can hardly fail to be surrounded by advisers) using a word that's > highly offensive elsewhere: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jan/09/usa.matthewengel > > Whereas the earlier quoted "I could murder an Indian" is accepted in the > UK as quite complimentary to their cuisine. > > Meanwhile, numerous Brits choked on their breakfast earlier this week: > > reakfast_tv> > -- > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Feb 2 14:00:34 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:00:34 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings References: <3542AF8F-B420-4468-BC02-3B6EB5296DFF@privaterra.org> <879A8333-1349-4DE1-9223-FFD64D94457F@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi just to add one point: In ICANNs NomCom we made a difference between citizenship and residence and it was up to the candidate to select whether he wanted to be treated on citizenship or residence. In the Case of Bill Drake - I strongly support his nomination - I think he should be treated as European. He lives in Europe since more than ten years. He was a member of the Board of EURALO. He was invited as a European expert by the Council of Europe and he teaches at the University of Zürich and in the European Summer School on Internet Governnace. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Valeria Betancourt Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 09:21 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings Hi Bill, You are right. We presented APC's nominations to the NomCom for consideration on Jan 20th. Valeria On 02/02/2012, at 3:13, William Drake wrote: Hi On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: I'll also be in Geneva. And I live here. My thanks to the nomcom for including me. Of course, since IGC and APC both nominated me three times prior, there's obviously no guarantee that UN NY will change its apparent practice of reserving any slots for US citizens for TC and business, but it's nice to be nominated anyway. On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:31 AM, parminder wrote: I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. I agree with others there should be clearer procedures and reporting requirements for IGC's nomcoms, as there are inter alia for ICANN's. This has been a recurrent issue not only with the selection of MAG candidates, but also the WGIGF and if I recall correctly WGIG... Things like: we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to nominate themselves and others, There were messages on the list from Jacqueline, Sala, I believe Izumi, maybe others...? Maybe more of an ongoing thread would have been desirable.... pulbicize the process and perhaps the list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all developments, ...... Sure For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the past). Valeria can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe APC did submit these to IGC and report them on the list. They included Africa: Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications, South Africa Asia: Shahzad Ahmad, BytesForAll, Pakistan LAC: Magaly Pazello, Center on Communication and Emergence, Brazil; Carlos Afonso, Instituto Nupef, Brazil North America and Europe: William Drake, University of Zurich, Switzerland; David Souter, ict Development Associates, United Kingdom Speaking of transparency, it would also be nice to have some idea how UN NY makes its selections, but we've been saying that for six years to no end... Best, Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Feb 2 14:18:47 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:18:47 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <3542AF8F-B420-4468-BC02-3B6EB5296DFF@privaterra.org> <879A8333-1349-4DE1-9223-FFD64D94457F@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <618E2154-2176-4496-A84B-695F7DDF0DF6@privaterra.org> Wolfgang, A question that first needs to be answered is what regional system will be used to select MAG members. The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) is one of several unofficial Regional Groups in the United Nations that act as voting blocs and negotiation forums. It's been used in the past, and my guess is that it might be the system taken into consideration in the MAG selection process. ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group I would hope that gender and region of origin aren't the only selection factors. Hopefully language skills, IGF experience, and multi-stakeholder support (if any) are also taken into consideration. The even larger question at this point is - when will the new MAG members be announced. Will we know in advance of the consultation in Feb, or will that decision come afterwards.. -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-02, at 2:00 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Hi > > just to add one point: > > In ICANNs NomCom we made a difference between citizenship and residence and it was up to the candidate to select whether he wanted to be treated on citizenship or residence. > > In the Case of Bill Drake - I strongly support his nomination - I think he should be treated as European. He lives in Europe since more than ten years. He was a member of the Board of EURALO. He was invited as a European expert by the Council of Europe and he teaches at the University of Zürich and in the European Summer School on Internet Governnace. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Valeria Betancourt > Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 09:21 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings > > > Hi Bill, > > You are right. We presented APC's nominations to the NomCom for consideration on Jan 20th. > > Valeria > > > On 02/02/2012, at 3:13, William Drake wrote: > > > Hi > > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > I'll also be in Geneva. > > > > And I live here. > > My thanks to the nomcom for including me. Of course, since IGC and APC both nominated me three times prior, there's obviously no guarantee that UN NY will change its apparent practice of reserving any slots for US citizens for TC and business, but it's nice to be nominated anyway. > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:31 AM, parminder wrote: > > > I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. > > > I agree with others there should be clearer procedures and reporting requirements for IGC's nomcoms, as there are inter alia for ICANN's. This has been a recurrent issue not only with the selection of MAG candidates, but also the WGIGF and if I recall correctly WGIG... > > > Things like: we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to nominate themselves and others, > > > There were messages on the list from Jacqueline, Sala, I believe Izumi, maybe others...? Maybe more of an ongoing thread would have been desirable.... > > > pulbicize the process and perhaps the list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all developments, ...... > > > Sure > > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the past). > > > Valeria can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe APC did submit these to IGC and report them on the list. They included > > Africa: Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications, South Africa > Asia: Shahzad Ahmad, BytesForAll, Pakistan > LAC: Magaly Pazello, Center on Communication and Emergence, Brazil; Carlos Afonso, Instituto Nupef, Brazil > North America and Europe: William Drake, University of Zurich, Switzerland; David Souter, ict Development Associates, United Kingdom > > Speaking of transparency, it would also be nice to have some idea how UN NY makes its selections, but we've been saying that for six years to no end... > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake > 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 Feb 2 16:50:37 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:50:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: Access Challenges: Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, These are excerpts from another thread that is related to *Access*. " *I know well that some - far away - people just cannot understand what it actually means not to have regular electricity. Just to share a memory: when I operated the only ISP in Cambodia early 1994 to mid 1997, this was my electricity supply for the system, which I put together from what I could find on the local market: Japanese 24 Volt DC truck battery Thai charger from 220 AC when we had public electricity supply * *US inverter 24 V **DC to 110 V AC (specially imported)* * Vietnamese transformer 110 V AC to 220 V AC home grown 220 V AC - mostly enough capacity, but not always - until the public electricity started again Sorry, a bit off list - but it is a plea to all who do not have regular electricity disruptions, to understand what different economic/technological conditions can mean." Norbert Klein* *"I had the privilege to visit our dear compa Norbert in Phnom Penh around that time and testify to the incredible magic he managed to make with those disparate electrical parts to keep the system alive."* * * *Carlos Afonso* * * *yes the issues are complex. The prices of such devices especially when the economy is totally in the dirt makes it really hard to manage the kitchen and invest in such solutions. Lets hope for the best. They also shot up the oil prices last night and things are just beyond control......we are an immature democracy but the governance doesn't seem to get its act straight even after completing almost 4 years of government.* * * *Fouad Bajwa* On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Fouad and Norbert raised an often overlooked and important issue in > relation to challenges with Access to the Internet. Over the years we have > seen countries around the world offering broadband stimulus in their > respective countries, refine policies etc to address the issue of the > demand. > > In the developing world or emerging markets, there are interesting > challenges that beset these countries. When natural disasters happen such > as the tsunami in American Samoa, the local telcos were not able to handle > the volume of calls in and out etc. There was some access to the internet > that allowed the world to know of their plight. Similarly when Haiti was > beset by the earthquake, it destroyed infrastructure as well. Considering > the recent tsunami in Japan and how it cost them $300billion in damages. > Thing of developed countries that face similar devastation. > > There are many countries that struggle with energy grid and we know that > to have proper infrastructure one needs energy to drive this aside from > transportation. In a country in the Pacific where not too long ago they had > just discovered people where mortality rates were extremely low etc. > Cutting roads through some of the terrain in PNG is challenging and most > Telcos build by transporting equipment through helicopters etc. The > additional challenges are land conflicts which can retard development. > Whilst Governments are addressing this through policies, it remains a > challenge. > > As the bandwidth consumption is forecasted to grow and clear product lines > from Vendors will evolve to be more efficient, developing countries face > another challenge being on the receiving end of inefficient products thus > perpetuating the cycle of inefficiency. Whilst there are standards and > trade laws in place, affordability is a critical issue. > > Another challenge is preparing ISP Networks to transition to IPv6 and it > is good to see how some European countries have encouraged IPv6 Transition > through procument policies etc. > > The IGF has and continues to be an excellent model in sharing lessons and > experiences and it is always great to see how countries grow their > broadband networks, the types of stimuli that they offered, the mistakes > that they made. > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 2 17:25:04 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:25:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Access Challenges: Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One of the issues with these problems would seem to be the inability of some (perhaps many) people in the developed world to comprehend the challenge. Here in Saint Lucia I must say we seem to be fairly lucky, although the weather can change that situation rather rapidly. However I particularly remember a message on the GKD list, several years ago now, posted by an ecstatically happy person who had managed to rig up a generator powered by a stationary bicycle (someone had to pedal it of course) and so run a computer for the village. A reply came almost immediately from someone - I think in the United States, but certainly in the economic 'North' - who deplored the demeaning and unnecessary use of human labour and proposed an alternative like solar cells. In the 'South' we learn to manage with what we have. There is an almost unbridgeable comprehension gap - a perspective/perception divide - between those who can take things (like an electricity supply) for granted and those who can't. Certainly this is an area which could be given a little more attention. Deirdre On 2 February 2012 17:50, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > > These are excerpts from another thread that is related to *Access*. > > > > " *I know well that some - far away - people just cannot understand what > it actually means not to have regular electricity. > > Just to share a memory: when I operated the only ISP in Cambodia early > 1994 to mid 1997, this was my electricity supply for the system, which I > put together from what I could find on the local market: > > Japanese 24 Volt DC truck battery > Thai charger from 220 AC when we had public electricity supply > * > > *US inverter 24 V **DC to 110 V AC (specially imported)* > > * Vietnamese transformer 110 V AC to 220 V AC > home grown 220 V AC - mostly enough capacity, but not always - until the > public electricity started again > > Sorry, a bit off list - but it is a plea to all who do not have regular > electricity disruptions, to understand what different > economic/technological conditions can mean." > > > Norbert Klein* > > > > *"I had the privilege to visit our dear compa Norbert in Phnom Penh around > that time and testify to the incredible magic he managed to make with > those disparate electrical parts to keep the system alive."* > > * > * > > *Carlos Afonso* > > * * > > *yes the issues are complex. The prices of such devices especially when > the economy is totally in the dirt makes it really hard to manage the > kitchen and invest in such solutions. Lets hope for the best. They > also shot up the oil prices last night and things are just beyond > control......we are an immature democracy but the governance doesn't > seem to get its act straight even after completing almost 4 years of > government.* > > * > * > > *Fouad Bajwa* > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Fouad and Norbert raised an often overlooked and important issue in >> relation to challenges with Access to the Internet. Over the years we have >> seen countries around the world offering broadband stimulus in their >> respective countries, refine policies etc to address the issue of the >> demand. >> >> In the developing world or emerging markets, there are interesting >> challenges that beset these countries. When natural disasters happen such >> as the tsunami in American Samoa, the local telcos were not able to handle >> the volume of calls in and out etc. There was some access to the internet >> that allowed the world to know of their plight. Similarly when Haiti was >> beset by the earthquake, it destroyed infrastructure as well. Considering >> the recent tsunami in Japan and how it cost them $300billion in damages. >> Thing of developed countries that face similar devastation. >> >> There are many countries that struggle with energy grid and we know that >> to have proper infrastructure one needs energy to drive this aside from >> transportation. In a country in the Pacific where not too long ago they had >> just discovered people where mortality rates were extremely low etc. >> Cutting roads through some of the terrain in PNG is challenging and most >> Telcos build by transporting equipment through helicopters etc. The >> additional challenges are land conflicts which can retard development. >> Whilst Governments are addressing this through policies, it remains a >> challenge. >> >> As the bandwidth consumption is forecasted to grow and clear product >> lines from Vendors will evolve to be more efficient, developing countries >> face another challenge being on the receiving end of inefficient products >> thus perpetuating the cycle of inefficiency. Whilst there are standards and >> trade laws in place, affordability is a critical issue. >> >> Another challenge is preparing ISP Networks to transition to IPv6 and it >> is good to see how some European countries have encouraged IPv6 Transition >> through procument policies etc. >> >> The IGF has and continues to be an excellent model in sharing lessons >> and experiences and it is always great to see how countries grow their >> broadband networks, the types of stimuli that they offered, the mistakes >> that they made. >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 anriette at apc.org Fri Feb 3 06:17:54 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:17:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F2BC262.5020103@apc.org> Dear Parminder and all On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote: > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. Yes.. congrats to all. > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions below. Yes, so do I. > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its processes > must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe > process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. Things like: > we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and perhaps the > list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS > entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all > developments, ...... > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the > IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the > past). Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC nomcom as we think the IGC selection is an important one. We are not sure that the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any acknowledgement. One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we are happy to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG' member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does make the MAG. The other people on our list were (as Bill posted). Carlos Afonso (Brazil) Magaly Pazello (Brazil) Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan) Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa) David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD) We will send these directly to the secretariat as well. Anriette Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the > final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. And in the > civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very live and > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At times, > like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the single > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to live up > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am really not > sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected. > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements we have been > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach effort, broad > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we need to > practise what we preach. > > Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning and use > of having candidates submit their information in the 'required' format > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required information > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of nominees? > > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little later... > parminder > > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Good names all. >> >> But, >> >> What process was used? >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? >> Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted on the web site anywhere? >> Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? >> >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in detail. Did I miss that? >> >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks that even further. >> >> >> avri >> >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as follows: >>> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda >>> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan >>> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada >>> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) >>> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) >>> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina >>> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan >>> >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their information in via the required template would mean that their names would not be sent. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. >>> >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential candidates to submit their information in the template shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the information submitted in required format could mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. >>> >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 3 07:42:02 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:42:02 -0200 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <4F2BC262.5020103@apc.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> <4F2BC262.5020103@apc.org> Message-ID: Congratulations to the tentative list of nominees. Thanks to NomCom for performing this important task and thanks in advance for the report they are producing. As you know, one of the topics that are being discussed in the WG on IGF improvements is precisely the process for nominating MAG members and the role of MAG. MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a strengthened IGF and the next group of selected MAG members will be invited to find concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the suggestions for improvement that will come out of the WG. That is to say that, in my view, the next group of MAG members will be appointed in a crucial moment. It is very important that they are supported by the community and that they are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The selection process is important on this regard, as it puts in place an important cornerstone. This is why this process needs to be documented and that the parameters for selection need to be made clear. The WG has been discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and also some of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a compilation (rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, not only as a contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of these topics could be covered in their report, it would be great, as we would be walking the talk), but also for discussion. From this thread I am sure that this topic is a concern of the community, and it would be great to have feedback about what is being discussed in the WG about it. The report will probably be structured with broad agreements as "headlines", further detailed on more specific proposals. Marília * * *B.II – MAG* *Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG meetings transparent * *Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings* - The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its proceedings available in the form of a live text streaming. This verbatim record is available on the IGF Web site. This proceeding is recommended for future meetings in order to enhance the openness and transparency of its work. - Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year, should be preserved, with a three-year limit to each member’s term in order to provide opportunities to all interested participants and to ensure fair representation *Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a transparent and documented fashion* *Broad agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each stakeholder group* - In light of transparency, stakeholder groups should publicise their selection process and should identify the process that works best for their own culture and methods of engagement - Selection of any stakeholder group may not be confined to be mediated through any one particular body. - The selection would be based on proposed candidate lists made by the three non-governmental stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups are encouraged to nominate a sufficiently large slate of candidates to provide some flexibility in selection of MAG members and are asked to ensure appropriate gender balance - One possibility mentioned by the MAG group itself last November: - A form of 'triage' that would be used to ensure appropriate geographical balance among MAG members. This 'triage' could be carried out by a trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, perhaps including some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted group would work in active consultation with the respective stakeholder groups. The recommendation would then be submitted to the Secretary-General for approval. One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be submitted to the Secretary-General should be published on the IGF website. - Another selection process was mentioned capturing the essence of the NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection committee" to avoid confusion with existing systems in other organizations. - The selection Committee members, appointed by the IGF Chair, should be drawn fairly from representatives of stakeholders across the different regions and constituencies. Preferably, the Selection Committee would include experts with wide-ranging knowledge of Internet governance, previous experience of program preparation and strong links to various stakeholder groups. This Selection Committee would select candidates for the MAG ensuring balanced representation of geographical distribution, gender and the wide range of stakeholders. The final selection of candidates should be submitted to the UN Secretary-General for final approval. Open and transparent selection process and working process *Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of Reference. * Requirements for MAG members: Potential stakeholder representatives should represent groups’ or constituencies’ interest and not private interests. Selected members should present: - Proven ability to work as a team member - Active participation in the IGF process - Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if possible, to other stakeholder groups - Experience and expertise in Internet governance issues Responsibilities of MAG members: - Attend three meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the yearly global meeting; - Participate in inter-sessional work; - Make outreach to wider community, including national and regional IGF type initiatives and bring other networks into the MAG; - Bring in comments from the community; - Explain recommendations to the community. - Willingness to commit to work and follow through Responsibilities of the MAG as a whole: - guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of service, rotations, performance criteria such as removal/replacement of MAG members that do not participate) - Develop the detailed programme including the identification of issues of concern; - Selecting workshops and other meetings; - Defining how best to plan and organize the meetings; - Organizing main sessions and where necessary participate in dedicated thematic working groups; - Establishing linkages between workshops and main sessions; - Facilitating the organization of workshops; - Coordinating panels and supporting panellists, moderators and speakers at the annual meeting; - Liaising with their respective communities; -Publishing reports. - Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction with secretariat Miscellaneous: - Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic committee. - Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF and in the context of IGF improvements and the recommendations for IGF improvements. - Consider relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and responsibilities - Consider the role of the MAG in context of IGF no longer being just a single event but rather having evolved into a process. - Consider mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient. - Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator and listener of what happens in consultations, important input into the process On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Parminder and all > > On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote: > > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. > > Yes.. congrats to all. > > > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and > > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions below. > > Yes, so do I. > > > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its processes > > must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe > > process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of > > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort > > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. Things like: > > we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to > > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and perhaps the > > list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS > > entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all > > developments, ...... > > > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the > > IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees > > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the > > past). > > Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC nomcom as > we think the IGC selection is an important one. We are not sure that > the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any acknowledgement. > > One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we are happy > to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG' > member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for > development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does make the MAG. > > The other people on our list were (as Bill posted). > > Carlos Afonso (Brazil) > Magaly Pazello (Brazil) > Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan) > Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa) > David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD) > > We will send these directly to the secretariat as well. > > Anriette > > > > Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the > > final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. And in the > > civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very live and > > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At times, > > like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the single > > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to live up > > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am really not > > sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected. > > > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements we have been > > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach effort, broad > > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we need to > > practise what we preach. > > > > Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning and use > > of having candidates submit their information in the 'required' format > > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required information > > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of nominees? > > > > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little later... > > parminder > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Good names all. > >> > >> But, > >> > >> What process was used? > >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? > >> Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted > on the web site anywhere? > >> Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC > expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? > >> > >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in > detail. Did I miss that? > >> > >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best > >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks > that even further. > >> > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as > follows: > >>> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > >>> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > >>> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > >>> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > >>> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > >>> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > >>> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > >>> > >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their > information in via the required template would mean that their names would > not be sent. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards > >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > >>> > >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had > completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information in > the required format and an email was sent out to the potential candidates > to submit their information in the template shown within the email. > Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the information > submitted in required format could mean that their names would not be put > forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to enable this > information to be sent. > >>> > >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 07:54:12 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 08:24:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> <4F2BC262.5020103@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Marilia! I think this offers great possibilities for improving the work of the MAG and the credibility of the selection process. I would like to see the IGC further involved in this discussion. Please keep us updated, and suggest ways we can support this process. Also, how can we as CS now work to support the CS nominees in a way that does not 'spam' the IGF secretariat? Is there a mechanism at this point? Thanks! Warm wishes, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* On 3 February 2012 08:12, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Congratulations to the tentative list of nominees. Thanks to NomCom for > performing this important task and thanks in advance for the report they > are producing. > > > > As you know, one of the topics that are being discussed in the WG on IGF > improvements is precisely the process for nominating MAG members and the > role of MAG. MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a strengthened > IGF and the next group of selected MAG members will be invited to find > concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the suggestions for > improvement that will come out of the WG. That is to say that, in my view, > the next group of MAG members will be appointed in a crucial moment. > > > > It is very important that they are supported by the community and that > they are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The selection > process is important on this regard, as it puts in place an important > cornerstone. This is why this process needs to be documented and that the > parameters for selection need to be made clear. > > > > The WG has been discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and also > some of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a > compilation (rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, not only > as a contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of these topics > could be covered in their report, it would be great, as we would be walking > the talk), but also for discussion. From this thread I am sure that this > topic is a concern of the community, and it would be great to have feedback > about what is being discussed in the WG about it. The report will probably > be structured with broad agreements as "headlines", further detailed on > more specific proposals. > > Marília > > * > * > > *B.II – MAG* > > *Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG > meetings transparent * > > > > *Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings* > > - The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its proceedings > available in the form of a live text streaming. This verbatim record is > available on the IGF Web site. This proceeding is recommended for future > meetings in order to enhance the openness and transparency of its work. > > - Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year, should > be preserved, with a three-year limit to each member’s term in order to > provide opportunities to all interested participants and to ensure fair > representation > > > > > > *Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a > transparent and documented fashion* > > *Broad agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each > stakeholder group* > > - In light of transparency, stakeholder groups should publicise their > selection process and should identify the process that works best for their > own culture and methods of engagement > > - Selection of any stakeholder group may not be confined to be mediated > through any one particular body. > > - The selection would be based on proposed candidate lists made by the > three non-governmental stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups are > encouraged to nominate a sufficiently large slate of candidates to provide > some flexibility in selection of MAG members and are asked to ensure > appropriate gender balance > > - One possibility mentioned by the MAG group itself last November: > > - A form of 'triage' that would be used to ensure appropriate > geographical balance among MAG members. This 'triage' could be carried out > by a trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, perhaps > including some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted group > would work in active consultation with the respective stakeholder groups. > > The recommendation would then be submitted to the Secretary-General for > approval. One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be > submitted to the Secretary-General should be published on the IGF website. > > > > - Another selection process was mentioned capturing the essence of the > NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection committee" to avoid confusion > with existing systems in other organizations. > > - The selection Committee members, appointed by the IGF Chair, > should be drawn fairly from representatives of stakeholders across the > different regions and constituencies. > > Preferably, the Selection Committee would include experts with > wide-ranging knowledge of Internet governance, previous experience of > program preparation and strong links to various stakeholder groups. > > This Selection Committee would select candidates for the MAG ensuring > balanced representation of geographical distribution, gender and the wide > range of stakeholders. The final selection of candidates should be > submitted to the UN Secretary-General for final approval. > > Open and transparent selection process and working process > > > > *Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of Reference. * > > > > Requirements for MAG members: > > Potential stakeholder representatives should represent groups’ or > constituencies’ interest and not private interests. > > Selected members should present: > > - Proven ability to work as a team member > > - Active participation in the IGF process > > - Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if possible, > to other stakeholder groups > > - Experience and expertise in Internet governance issues > > > > Responsibilities of MAG members: > > - Attend three meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the yearly > global meeting; > > - Participate in inter-sessional work; > > - Make outreach to wider community, including national and regional IGF > type initiatives and bring other networks into the MAG; > > - Bring in comments from the community; > > - Explain recommendations to the community. > > - Willingness to commit to work and follow through > > > > > > Responsibilities of the MAG as a whole: > > - guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of service, rotations, > performance criteria such as removal/replacement of MAG members that do not > participate) > > - Develop the detailed programme including the identification of issues of > concern; > > - Selecting workshops and other meetings; > > - Defining how best to plan and organize the meetings; > > - Organizing main sessions and where necessary participate in dedicated > thematic working groups; > > - Establishing linkages between workshops and main sessions; > > - Facilitating the organization of workshops; > > - Coordinating panels and supporting panellists, moderators and speakers > at the annual meeting; > > - Liaising with their respective communities; > > -Publishing reports. > > - Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction with > secretariat > > > > Miscellaneous: > > - Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic committee. > > - Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF and in > the context of IGF improvements and the recommendations for IGF > improvements. > > - Consider relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and > responsibilities > > - Consider the role of the MAG in context of IGF no longer being just a > single event but rather having evolved into a process. > > - Consider mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient. > > - Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator and > listener of what happens in consultations, important input into the process > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear Parminder and all >> >> On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote: >> > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. >> >> Yes.. congrats to all. >> > >> > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and >> > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions below. >> >> Yes, so do I. >> >> > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its processes >> > must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe >> > process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of >> > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort >> > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. Things like: >> > we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to >> > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and perhaps the >> > list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS >> > entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all >> > developments, ...... >> > >> > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the >> > IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees >> > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the >> > past). >> >> Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC nomcom as >> we think the IGC selection is an important one. We are not sure that >> the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any acknowledgement. >> >> One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we are happy >> to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG' >> member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for >> development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does make the >> MAG. >> >> The other people on our list were (as Bill posted). >> >> Carlos Afonso (Brazil) >> Magaly Pazello (Brazil) >> Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan) >> Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa) >> David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD) >> >> We will send these directly to the secretariat as well. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the >> > final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. And in the >> > civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very live and >> > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At times, >> > like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the single >> > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to live up >> > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am really not >> > sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected. >> > >> > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements we have been >> > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach effort, broad >> > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we need to >> > practise what we preach. >> > >> > Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning and use >> > of having candidates submit their information in the 'required' format >> > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required information >> > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of nominees? >> > >> > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little later... >> > parminder >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Good names all. >> >> >> >> But, >> >> >> >> What process was used? >> >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? >> >> Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted >> on the web site anywhere? >> >> Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC >> expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? >> >> >> >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in >> detail. Did I miss that? >> >> >> >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best >> >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection >> risks that even further. >> >> >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Dear All, >> >>> >> >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are >> as follows: >> >>> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda >> >>> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan >> >>> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada >> >>> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) >> >>> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) >> >>> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina >> >>> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan >> >>> >> >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their >> information in via the required template would mean that their names would >> not be sent. >> >>> >> >>> Kind Regards >> >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >> >>> >> >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. >> >>> >> >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had >> completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information in >> the required format and an email was sent out to the potential candidates >> to submit their information in the template shown within the email. >> Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the information >> submitted in required format could mean that their names would not be put >> forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to enable this >> information to be sent. >> >>> >> >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>> >> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>> >> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 07:58:45 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:58:45 -0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: <618E2154-2176-4496-A84B-695F7DDF0DF6@privaterra.org> References: <3542AF8F-B420-4468-BC02-3B6EB5296DFF@privaterra.org> <879A8333-1349-4DE1-9223-FFD64D94457F@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <618E2154-2176-4496-A84B-695F7DDF0DF6@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Hi Robert and all, I raised the discussion about what is being currently debated in the WG on IGF improvements regarding MAG. I probably should have responded to this thread here, but it is under "selection of MAG-urgent". You raised important points regarding the criteria of selection, Robert. I believe that "experience on IG issues" and "active participation in the IGF" are covered there, but I am not sure what you mean by multistakeholder support. We are considering so far that MAG candidates should have "Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if possible, to other stakeholder groups". Not sure if this covers what you pointed out. Marília On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Wolfgang, > > A question that first needs to be answered is what regional system will be > used to select MAG members. > > The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) is one of several unofficial > Regional Groups in the United Nations that act as voting blocs and > negotiation forums. It's been used in the past, and my guess is that it > might be the system taken into consideration in the MAG selection process. > > ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group > > I would hope that gender and region of origin aren't the only selection > factors. Hopefully language skills, IGF experience, and multi-stakeholder > support (if any) are also taken into consideration. > > The even larger question at this point is - when will the new MAG members > be announced. Will we know in advance of the consultation in Feb, or will > that decision come afterwards.. > > > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-02, at 2:00 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > Hi > > > > just to add one point: > > > > In ICANNs NomCom we made a difference between citizenship and residence > and it was up to the candidate to select whether he wanted to be treated on > citizenship or residence. > > > > In the Case of Bill Drake - I strongly support his nomination - I think > he should be treated as European. He lives in Europe since more than ten > years. He was a member of the Board of EURALO. He was invited as a European > expert by the Council of Europe and he teaches at the University of Zürich > and in the European Summer School on Internet Governnace. > > > > Best wishes > > > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Valeria > Betancourt > > Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 09:21 > > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > You are right. We presented APC's nominations to the NomCom for > consideration on Jan 20th. > > > > Valeria > > > > > > On 02/02/2012, at 3:13, William Drake wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > > > I'll also be in Geneva. > > > > > > > > And I live here. > > > > My thanks to the nomcom for including me. Of course, since IGC > and APC both nominated me three times prior, there's obviously no guarantee > that UN NY will change its apparent practice of reserving any slots for US > citizens for TC and business, but it's nice to be nominated anyway. > > > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:31 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. > > > > > > I agree with others there should be clearer procedures and > reporting requirements for IGC's nomcoms, as there are inter alia for > ICANN's. This has been a recurrent issue not only with the selection of > MAG candidates, but also the WGIGF and if I recall correctly WGIG... > > > > > > Things like: we need to make repeated calls for > nomination, encourage people to nominate themselves and others, > > > > > > There were messages on the list from Jacqueline, Sala, I believe > Izumi, maybe others...? Maybe more of an ongoing thread would have been > desirable.... > > > > > > pulbicize the process and perhaps the list of nomcom > members as well, make active out reach to various CS entities inviting > nomination, keeping the list posted of all developments, ...... > > > > > > Sure > > > > > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of > names to the IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their > nominees for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in > the past). > > > > > > Valeria can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe APC did submit > these to IGC and report them on the list. They included > > > > Africa: Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive > Communications, South Africa > > Asia: Shahzad Ahmad, BytesForAll, Pakistan > > LAC: Magaly Pazello, Center on Communication and Emergence, > Brazil; Carlos Afonso, Instituto Nupef, Brazil > > North America and Europe: William Drake, University of Zurich, > Switzerland; David Souter, ict Development Associates, United Kingdom > > > > Speaking of transparency, it would also be nice to have some idea > how UN NY makes its selections, but we've been saying that for six years to > no end... > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *************************************************** > > William J. Drake > > International Fellow & Lecturer > > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > > University of Zurich, Switzerland > > william.drake at uzh.ch > > www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake > > 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 > > -- 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 anriette at apc.org Fri Feb 3 08:01:55 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:01:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> <4F2BC262.5020103@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F2BDAC3.1050501@apc.org> Dear Marilia Thanks for posting this text from the WG report... one proposal that we had made in the WG, which I don't see reflected in the current draft text, is that we increase civil society representation through treating the technical community and the academic community as two distinct stakeholder groups, each entitled to its own representatives. Bill can explain the history of how the rather fuzzy 'technical and academic' category developed... But my concern is that currently civil society is having to share our 'places' between civil society organisations and individual civil society activists from the academic community. I am not at all unhappy about us doing this as many people who are academics are also active in civil society, and they add a lot of value to multi-stakeholder processes... but I think we need and deserve to have both groups represented separately. Currently civil society is under-represented in the MAG and I believe it is essential to change this. If the academic community is treated as a category in its own right we would then have the following non-governmental stakeholder groups represented in the MAG: Civil society (drawing from people in organised civil society) Academic community Technical community Business This would deepen multi-stakeholder participation in my view. Anriette On 03/02/12 14:42, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Congratulations to the tentative list of nominees. Thanks to NomCom for > performing this important task and thanks in advance for the report they > are producing. > > > > As you know, one of the topics that are being discussed in the WG on IGF > improvements is precisely the process for nominating MAG members and the > role of MAG. MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a > strengthened IGF and the next group of selected MAG members will be > invited to find concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the > suggestions for improvement that will come out of the WG. That is to say > that, in my view, the next group of MAG members will be appointed in a > crucial moment. > > > > It is very important that they are supported by the community and that > they are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The selection > process is important on this regard, as it puts in place an important > cornerstone. This is why this process needs to be documented and that > the parameters for selection need to be made clear. > > > > The WG has been discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and also > some of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a > compilation (rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, not > only as a contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of these > topics could be covered in their report, it would be great, as we would > be walking the talk), but also for discussion. From this thread I am > sure that this topic is a concern of the community, and it would be > great to have feedback about what is being discussed in the WG about it. > The report will probably be structured with broad agreements as > "headlines", further detailed on more specific proposals. > > Marília > > * > * > > *B.II – MAG* > > *Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG > meetings transparent * > > > > *Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings* > > - The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its proceedings > available in the form of a live text streaming. This verbatim record is > available on the IGF Web site. This proceeding is recommended for future > meetings in order to enhance the openness and transparency of its work. > > - Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year, should > be preserved, with a three-year limit to each member’s term in order to > provide opportunities to all interested participants and to ensure fair > representation > > > > > > *Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a > transparent and documented fashion * > > *Broad agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each > stakeholder group* > > - In light of transparency, stakeholder groups should publicise their > selection process and should identify the process that works best for > their own culture and methods of engagement > > - Selection of any stakeholder group may not be confined to be mediated > through any one particular body. > > - The selection would be based on proposed candidate lists made by the > three non-governmental stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups are > encouraged to nominate a sufficiently large slate of candidates to > provide some flexibility in selection of MAG members and are asked to > ensure appropriate gender balance > > - One possibility mentioned by the MAG group itself last November: > > - A form of 'triage' that would be used to ensure appropriate > geographical balance among MAG members. This 'triage' could be carried > out by a trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, perhaps > including some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted group > would work in active consultation with the respective stakeholder groups. > > The recommendation would then be submitted to the Secretary-General for > approval. One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be > submitted to the Secretary-General should be published on the IGF website. > > > > - Another selection process was mentioned capturing the essence of the > NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection committee" to avoid > confusion with existing systems in other organizations. > > - The selection Committee members, appointed by the IGF Chair, > should be drawn fairly from representatives of stakeholders across the > different regions and constituencies. > > Preferably, the Selection Committee would include experts with > wide-ranging knowledge of Internet governance, previous experience of > program preparation and strong links to various stakeholder groups. > > This Selection Committee would select candidates for the MAG ensuring > balanced representation of geographical distribution, gender and the > wide range of stakeholders. The final selection of candidates should be > submitted to the UN Secretary-General for final approval. > > Open and transparent selection process and working process > > > > *Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of Reference. * > > > > Requirements for MAG members: > > Potential stakeholder representatives should represent groups’ or > constituencies’ interest and not private interests. > > Selected members should present: > > - Proven ability to work as a team member > > - Active participation in the IGF process > > - Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if > possible, to other stakeholder groups > > - Experience and expertise in Internet governance issues > > > > Responsibilities of MAG members: > > - Attend three meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the yearly > global meeting; > > - Participate in inter-sessional work; > > - Make outreach to wider community, including national and regional IGF > type initiatives and bring other networks into the MAG; > > - Bring in comments from the community; > > - Explain recommendations to the community. > > - Willingness to commit to work and follow through > > > > > > Responsibilities of the MAG as a whole: > > - guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of service, rotations, > performance criteria such as removal/replacement of MAG members that do > not participate) > > - Develop the detailed programme including the identification of issues > of concern; > > - Selecting workshops and other meetings; > > - Defining how best to plan and organize the meetings; > > - Organizing main sessions and where necessary participate in dedicated > thematic working groups; > > - Establishing linkages between workshops and main sessions; > > - Facilitating the organization of workshops; > > - Coordinating panels and supporting panellists, moderators and speakers > at the annual meeting; > > - Liaising with their respective communities; > > -Publishing reports. > > - Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction with > secretariat > > > > Miscellaneous: > > - Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic committee. > > - Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF and in > the context of IGF improvements and the recommendations for IGF > improvements. > > - Consider relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and > responsibilities > > - Consider the role of the MAG in context of IGF no longer being just a > single event but rather having evolved into a process. > > - Consider mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient. > > - Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator and > listener of what happens in consultations, important input into the process > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Dear Parminder and all > > On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote: > > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. > > Yes.. congrats to all. > > > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and > > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions > below. > > Yes, so do I. > > > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its processes > > must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe > > process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the > kind of > > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach > effort > > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. Things > like: > > we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to > > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and perhaps the > > list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS > > entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all > > developments, ...... > > > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the > > IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their > nominees > > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the > > past). > > Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC nomcom as > we think the IGC selection is an important one. We are not sure that > the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any > acknowledgement. > > One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we are happy > to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG' > member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for > development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does make > the MAG. > > The other people on our list were (as Bill posted). > > Carlos Afonso (Brazil) > Magaly Pazello (Brazil) > Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan) > Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa) > David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD) > > We will send these directly to the secretariat as well. > > Anriette > > > > Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the > > final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. And in the > > civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very live and > > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At > times, > > like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the > single > > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to > live up > > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am > really not > > sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected. > > > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements we have > been > > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach effort, > broad > > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we need to > > practise what we preach. > > > > Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning > and use > > of having candidates submit their information in the 'required' format > > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required information > > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of nominees? > > > > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little later... > > parminder > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Good names all. > >> > >> But, > >> > >> What process was used? > >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? > >> Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they > posted on the web site anywhere? > >> Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC > expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? > >> > >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in > detail. Did I miss that? > >> > >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best > >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection > risks that even further. > >> > >> > >> avri > >> > >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom > are as follows: > >>> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > >>> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > >>> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > >>> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > >>> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > >>> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > >>> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > >>> > >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their > information in via the required template would mean that their > names would not be sent. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards > >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > >>> > >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that > they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the > information in the required format and an email was sent out to the > potential candidates to submit their information in the template > shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that > failing to have the information submitted in required format could > mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been given > 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. > >>> > >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 3 08:17:36 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:17:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> <4F2BC262.5020103@apc.org> Message-ID: In message , at 10:42:02 on Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Marilia Maciel quoted: >Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings ... >- Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year, >should be preserved, with a three-year limit to each member’s term in >order to provide opportunities to all interested participants and to >ensure fair representatio That's interesting, because mathematically a 1/3 rotation and a maximum 3 year tenure combine to make quite a tightly defined system. I don't want to labour the point, but if you don't very strictly rotate off exactly the "most senior" 1/3, you will inevitably end up with some members entering a 4th year. Does this also answer a question of whether someone can be "rotated off", and then immediately "re-appointed"[1], or is that forbidden? (perhaps members of the CSTD WG could comment). [1] In the manner of some ICANN Board appointments for example. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 08:23:16 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:23:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <4F2BDAC3.1050501@apc.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> <4F2BC262.5020103@apc.org> <4F2BDAC3.1050501@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Anriette, I totally agree with you. This was one of the points that Carlos Affonso and I raised on the paper we wrote to APC about challenges for CS participation. We did some research about why tech and academic were grouped together, but I would love to hear the background story from Bill ;) Anyway, the important thing is that we propose it and the representatives of the technical & academic community in the WG did agree that it would be the bast way to go. I searched Peter's older document and the proposal is there: "Stakeholder groups should strive for geographic diversity, gender balance, and developing country representation. Stakeholder groups should also strive to reflect their internal diversity separating technical community and academic community", so I just probably missed the last part of the sentence when I pasted it. Marília On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Marilia > > Thanks for posting this text from the WG report... one proposal that we > had made in the WG, which I don't see reflected in the current draft > text, is that we increase civil society representation through treating > the technical community and the academic community as two distinct > stakeholder groups, each entitled to its own representatives. > > Bill can explain the history of how the rather fuzzy 'technical and > academic' category developed... > > But my concern is that currently civil society is having to share our > 'places' between civil society organisations and individual civil > society activists from the academic community. I am not at all unhappy > about us doing this as many people who are academics are also active in > civil society, and they add a lot of value to multi-stakeholder > processes... but I think we need and deserve to have both groups > represented separately. Currently civil society is under-represented in > the MAG and I believe it is essential to change this. > > If the academic community is treated as a category in its own right we > would then have the following non-governmental stakeholder groups > represented in the MAG: > > Civil society (drawing from people in organised civil society) > Academic community > Technical community > Business > > This would deepen multi-stakeholder participation in my view. > > Anriette > > > > On 03/02/12 14:42, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Congratulations to the tentative list of nominees. Thanks to NomCom for > > performing this important task and thanks in advance for the report they > > are producing. > > > > > > > > As you know, one of the topics that are being discussed in the WG on IGF > > improvements is precisely the process for nominating MAG members and the > > role of MAG. MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a > > strengthened IGF and the next group of selected MAG members will be > > invited to find concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the > > suggestions for improvement that will come out of the WG. That is to say > > that, in my view, the next group of MAG members will be appointed in a > > crucial moment. > > > > > > > > It is very important that they are supported by the community and that > > they are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The selection > > process is important on this regard, as it puts in place an important > > cornerstone. This is why this process needs to be documented and that > > the parameters for selection need to be made clear. > > > > > > > > The WG has been discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and also > > some of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a > > compilation (rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, not > > only as a contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of these > > topics could be covered in their report, it would be great, as we would > > be walking the talk), but also for discussion. From this thread I am > > sure that this topic is a concern of the community, and it would be > > great to have feedback about what is being discussed in the WG about it. > > The report will probably be structured with broad agreements as > > "headlines", further detailed on more specific proposals. > > > > Marília > > > > * > > * > > > > *B.II – MAG* > > > > *Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG > > meetings transparent * > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings* > > > > - The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its proceedings > > available in the form of a live text streaming. This verbatim record is > > available on the IGF Web site. This proceeding is recommended for future > > meetings in order to enhance the openness and transparency of its work. > > > > - Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year, should > > be preserved, with a three-year limit to each member’s term in order to > > provide opportunities to all interested participants and to ensure fair > > representation > > > > > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a > > transparent and documented fashion * > > > > *Broad agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each > > stakeholder group* > > > > - In light of transparency, stakeholder groups should publicise their > > selection process and should identify the process that works best for > > their own culture and methods of engagement > > > > - Selection of any stakeholder group may not be confined to be mediated > > through any one particular body. > > > > - The selection would be based on proposed candidate lists made by the > > three non-governmental stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups are > > encouraged to nominate a sufficiently large slate of candidates to > > provide some flexibility in selection of MAG members and are asked to > > ensure appropriate gender balance > > > > - One possibility mentioned by the MAG group itself last November: > > > > - A form of 'triage' that would be used to ensure appropriate > > geographical balance among MAG members. This 'triage' could be carried > > out by a trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, perhaps > > including some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted group > > would work in active consultation with the respective stakeholder groups. > > > > The recommendation would then be submitted to the Secretary-General for > > approval. One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be > > submitted to the Secretary-General should be published on the IGF > website. > > > > > > > > - Another selection process was mentioned capturing the essence of the > > NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection committee" to avoid > > confusion with existing systems in other organizations. > > > > - The selection Committee members, appointed by the IGF Chair, > > should be drawn fairly from representatives of stakeholders across the > > different regions and constituencies. > > > > Preferably, the Selection Committee would include experts with > > wide-ranging knowledge of Internet governance, previous experience of > > program preparation and strong links to various stakeholder groups. > > > > This Selection Committee would select candidates for the MAG ensuring > > balanced representation of geographical distribution, gender and the > > wide range of stakeholders. The final selection of candidates should be > > submitted to the UN Secretary-General for final approval. > > > > Open and transparent selection process and working process > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of Reference. * > > > > > > > > Requirements for MAG members: > > > > Potential stakeholder representatives should represent groups’ or > > constituencies’ interest and not private interests. > > > > Selected members should present: > > > > - Proven ability to work as a team member > > > > - Active participation in the IGF process > > > > - Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if > > possible, to other stakeholder groups > > > > - Experience and expertise in Internet governance issues > > > > > > > > Responsibilities of MAG members: > > > > - Attend three meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the yearly > > global meeting; > > > > - Participate in inter-sessional work; > > > > - Make outreach to wider community, including national and regional IGF > > type initiatives and bring other networks into the MAG; > > > > - Bring in comments from the community; > > > > - Explain recommendations to the community. > > > > - Willingness to commit to work and follow through > > > > > > > > > > > > Responsibilities of the MAG as a whole: > > > > - guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of service, rotations, > > performance criteria such as removal/replacement of MAG members that do > > not participate) > > > > - Develop the detailed programme including the identification of issues > > of concern; > > > > - Selecting workshops and other meetings; > > > > - Defining how best to plan and organize the meetings; > > > > - Organizing main sessions and where necessary participate in dedicated > > thematic working groups; > > > > - Establishing linkages between workshops and main sessions; > > > > - Facilitating the organization of workshops; > > > > - Coordinating panels and supporting panellists, moderators and speakers > > at the annual meeting; > > > > - Liaising with their respective communities; > > > > -Publishing reports. > > > > - Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction with > > secretariat > > > > > > > > Miscellaneous: > > > > - Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic committee. > > > > - Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF and in > > the context of IGF improvements and the recommendations for IGF > > improvements. > > > > - Consider relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and > > responsibilities > > > > - Consider the role of the MAG in context of IGF no longer being just a > > single event but rather having evolved into a process. > > > > - Consider mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient. > > > > - Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator and > > listener of what happens in consultations, important input into the > process > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > > > > Dear Parminder and all > > > > On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote: > > > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. > > > > Yes.. congrats to all. > > > > > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and > > > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions > > below. > > > > Yes, so do I. > > > > > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its > processes > > > must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe > > > process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the > > kind of > > > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach > > effort > > > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. Things > > like: > > > we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to > > > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and perhaps > the > > > list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS > > > entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all > > > developments, ...... > > > > > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to > the > > > IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their > > nominees > > > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in > the > > > past). > > > > Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC > nomcom as > > we think the IGC selection is an important one. We are not sure that > > the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any > > acknowledgement. > > > > One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we are > happy > > to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG' > > member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for > > development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does make > > the MAG. > > > > The other people on our list were (as Bill posted). > > > > Carlos Afonso (Brazil) > > Magaly Pazello (Brazil) > > Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan) > > Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa) > > David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD) > > > > We will send these directly to the secretariat as well. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the > > > final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. And in > the > > > civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very live > and > > > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At > > times, > > > like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the > > single > > > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to > > live up > > > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am > > really not > > > sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected. > > > > > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements we have > > been > > > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach effort, > > broad > > > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we need to > > > practise what we preach. > > > > > > Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning > > and use > > > of having candidates submit their information in the 'required' > format > > > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required > information > > > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of > nominees? > > > > > > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little later... > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> Good names all. > > >> > > >> But, > > >> > > >> What process was used? > > >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? > > >> Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they > > posted on the web site anywhere? > > >> Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC > > expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? > > >> > > >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in > > detail. Did I miss that? > > >> > > >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at > best > > >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection > > risks that even further. > > >> > > >> > > >> avri > > >> > > >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>> Dear All, > > >>> > > >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom > > are as follows: > > >>> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > > >>> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > > >>> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > > >>> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > > >>> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > > >>> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > > >>> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > > >>> > > >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their > > information in via the required template would mean that their > > names would not be sent. > > >>> > > >>> Kind Regards > > >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >>> Dear All, > > >>> > > >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > > >>> > > >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that > > they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the > > information in the required format and an email was sent out to the > > potential candidates to submit their information in the template > > shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that > > failing to have the information submitted in required format could > > mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been given > > 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. > > >>> > > >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >>> > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >>> > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>> > > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>> > > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>> > > >> > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -- 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 anriette at apc.org Fri Feb 3 08:34:11 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:34:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> <4F2BC262.5020103@apc.org> <4F2BDAC3.1050501@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F2BE253.8050305@apc.org> Thanks so much for checking the document carefully Marilia.. and going back to the earlier version as well.. I checked the new version of the document and this text is still there, on page 11. We will need to make sure that it is not just put at the bottom of a long check list in the final report :) Best Anriette On 03/02/12 15:23, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Anriette, > > I totally agree with you. This was one of the points that Carlos Affonso > and I raised on the paper we wrote to APC about challenges for CS > participation. We did some research about why tech and academic were > grouped together, but I would love to hear the background story from > Bill ;) > > Anyway, the important thing is that we propose it and the > representatives of the technical & academic community in the WG did > agree that it would be the bast way to go. > > I searched Peter's older document and the proposal is > there: "Stakeholder groups should strive for geographic diversity, > gender balance, and developing country representation. Stakeholder > groups should also strive to reflect their internal diversity separating > technical community and academic community", so I just probably missed > the last part of the sentence when I pasted it. > > Marília > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Dear Marilia > > Thanks for posting this text from the WG report... one proposal that we > had made in the WG, which I don't see reflected in the current draft > text, is that we increase civil society representation through treating > the technical community and the academic community as two distinct > stakeholder groups, each entitled to its own representatives. > > Bill can explain the history of how the rather fuzzy 'technical and > academic' category developed... > > But my concern is that currently civil society is having to share our > 'places' between civil society organisations and individual civil > society activists from the academic community. I am not at all unhappy > about us doing this as many people who are academics are also active in > civil society, and they add a lot of value to multi-stakeholder > processes... but I think we need and deserve to have both groups > represented separately. Currently civil society is under-represented in > the MAG and I believe it is essential to change this. > > If the academic community is treated as a category in its own right we > would then have the following non-governmental stakeholder groups > represented in the MAG: > > Civil society (drawing from people in organised civil society) > Academic community > Technical community > Business > > This would deepen multi-stakeholder participation in my view. > > Anriette > > > > On 03/02/12 14:42, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Congratulations to the tentative list of nominees. Thanks to > NomCom for > > performing this important task and thanks in advance for the > report they > > are producing. > > > > > > > > As you know, one of the topics that are being discussed in the WG > on IGF > > improvements is precisely the process for nominating MAG members > and the > > role of MAG. MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a > > strengthened IGF and the next group of selected MAG members will be > > invited to find concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the > > suggestions for improvement that will come out of the WG. That is > to say > > that, in my view, the next group of MAG members will be appointed in a > > crucial moment. > > > > > > > > It is very important that they are supported by the community and that > > they are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The > selection > > process is important on this regard, as it puts in place an important > > cornerstone. This is why this process needs to be documented and that > > the parameters for selection need to be made clear. > > > > > > > > The WG has been discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and > also > > some of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a > > compilation (rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, not > > only as a contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of these > > topics could be covered in their report, it would be great, as we > would > > be walking the talk), but also for discussion. From this thread I am > > sure that this topic is a concern of the community, and it would be > > great to have feedback about what is being discussed in the WG > about it. > > The report will probably be structured with broad agreements as > > "headlines", further detailed on more specific proposals. > > > > Marília > > > > * > > * > > > > *B.II – MAG* > > > > *Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG > > meetings transparent * > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings* > > > > - The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its > proceedings > > available in the form of a live text streaming. This verbatim > record is > > available on the IGF Web site. This proceeding is recommended for > future > > meetings in order to enhance the openness and transparency of its > work. > > > > - Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year, > should > > be preserved, with a three-year limit to each member’s term in > order to > > provide opportunities to all interested participants and to ensure > fair > > representation > > > > > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a > > transparent and documented fashion * > > > > *Broad agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each > > stakeholder group* > > > > - In light of transparency, stakeholder groups should publicise their > > selection process and should identify the process that works best for > > their own culture and methods of engagement > > > > - Selection of any stakeholder group may not be confined to be > mediated > > through any one particular body. > > > > - The selection would be based on proposed candidate lists made by the > > three non-governmental stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups are > > encouraged to nominate a sufficiently large slate of candidates to > > provide some flexibility in selection of MAG members and are asked to > > ensure appropriate gender balance > > > > - One possibility mentioned by the MAG group itself last November: > > > > - A form of 'triage' that would be used to ensure appropriate > > geographical balance among MAG members. This 'triage' could be carried > > out by a trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, perhaps > > including some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted > group > > would work in active consultation with the respective stakeholder > groups. > > > > The recommendation would then be submitted to the > Secretary-General for > > approval. One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be > > submitted to the Secretary-General should be published on the IGF > website. > > > > > > > > - Another selection process was mentioned capturing the essence of the > > NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection committee" to avoid > > confusion with existing systems in other organizations. > > > > - The selection Committee members, appointed by the IGF Chair, > > should be drawn fairly from representatives of stakeholders across the > > different regions and constituencies. > > > > Preferably, the Selection Committee would include experts with > > wide-ranging knowledge of Internet governance, previous experience of > > program preparation and strong links to various stakeholder groups. > > > > This Selection Committee would select candidates for the MAG ensuring > > balanced representation of geographical distribution, gender and the > > wide range of stakeholders. The final selection of candidates > should be > > submitted to the UN Secretary-General for final approval. > > > > Open and transparent selection process and working process > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of Reference. * > > > > > > > > Requirements for MAG members: > > > > Potential stakeholder representatives should represent groups’ or > > constituencies’ interest and not private interests. > > > > Selected members should present: > > > > - Proven ability to work as a team member > > > > - Active participation in the IGF process > > > > - Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if > > possible, to other stakeholder groups > > > > - Experience and expertise in Internet governance issues > > > > > > > > Responsibilities of MAG members: > > > > - Attend three meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the yearly > > global meeting; > > > > - Participate in inter-sessional work; > > > > - Make outreach to wider community, including national and > regional IGF > > type initiatives and bring other networks into the MAG; > > > > - Bring in comments from the community; > > > > - Explain recommendations to the community. > > > > - Willingness to commit to work and follow through > > > > > > > > > > > > Responsibilities of the MAG as a whole: > > > > - guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of service, rotations, > > performance criteria such as removal/replacement of MAG members > that do > > not participate) > > > > - Develop the detailed programme including the identification of > issues > > of concern; > > > > - Selecting workshops and other meetings; > > > > - Defining how best to plan and organize the meetings; > > > > - Organizing main sessions and where necessary participate in > dedicated > > thematic working groups; > > > > - Establishing linkages between workshops and main sessions; > > > > - Facilitating the organization of workshops; > > > > - Coordinating panels and supporting panellists, moderators and > speakers > > at the annual meeting; > > > > - Liaising with their respective communities; > > > > -Publishing reports. > > > > - Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction with > > secretariat > > > > > > > > Miscellaneous: > > > > - Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic committee. > > > > - Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF > and in > > the context of IGF improvements and the recommendations for IGF > > improvements. > > > > - Consider relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and > > responsibilities > > > > - Consider the role of the MAG in context of IGF no longer being > just a > > single event but rather having evolved into a process. > > > > - Consider mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient. > > > > - Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator and > > listener of what happens in consultations, important input into > the process > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > > >> wrote: > > > > Dear Parminder and all > > > > On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote: > > > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. > > > > Yes.. congrats to all. > > > > > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and > > > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions > > below. > > > > Yes, so do I. > > > > > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its > processes > > > must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe > > > process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the > > kind of > > > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, > out-reach > > effort > > > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. > Things > > like: > > > we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage > people to > > > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and > perhaps the > > > list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to > various CS > > > entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all > > > developments, ...... > > > > > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of > names to the > > > IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their > > nominees > > > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has > happened in the > > > past). > > > > Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC > nomcom as > > we think the IGC selection is an important one. We are not > sure that > > the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any > > acknowledgement. > > > > One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we > are happy > > to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG' > > member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for > > development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does make > > the MAG. > > > > The other people on our list were (as Bill posted). > > > > Carlos Afonso (Brazil) > > Magaly Pazello (Brazil) > > Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan) > > Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa) > > David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD) > > > > We will send these directly to the secretariat as well. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the > > > final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. > And in the > > > civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very > live and > > > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At > > times, > > > like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the > > single > > > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to > > live up > > > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am > > really not > > > sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected. > > > > > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements > we have > > been > > > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach > effort, > > broad > > > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we > need to > > > practise what we preach. > > > > > > Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning > > and use > > > of having candidates submit their information in the > 'required' format > > > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required > information > > > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of > nominees? > > > > > > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little > later... > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> Good names all. > > >> > > >> But, > > >> > > >> What process was used? > > >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing > that? > > >> Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they > > posted on the web site anywhere? > > >> Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC > > expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? > > >> > > >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining > everything in > > detail. Did I miss that? > > >> > > >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous > at best > > >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this > selection > > risks that even further. > > >> > > >> > > >> avri > > >> > > >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>> Dear All, > > >>> > > >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the > NomCom > > are as follows: > > >>> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > > >>> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > > >>> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > > >>> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > > >>> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > > >>> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > > >>> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > > >>> > > >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send > their > > information in via the required template would mean that their > > names would not be sent. > > >>> > > >>> Kind Regards > > >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > >> > > > > >> wrote: > > >>> Dear All, > > >>> > > >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > > >>> > > >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that > > they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to > receive the > > information in the required format and an email was sent out > to the > > potential candidates to submit their information in the template > > shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that > > failing to have the information submitted in required format could > > mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been > given > > 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. > > >>> > > >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >>> > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >>> > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > > >> > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > >>> > > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > >>> > > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >>> > > >> > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 3 09:04:38 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:04:38 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings In-Reply-To: References: <3542AF8F-B420-4468-BC02-3B6EB5296DFF@privaterra.org> <879A8333-1349-4DE1-9223-FFD64D94457F@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9DB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <618E2154-2176-4496-A84B-695F7DDF0DF6@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <67144D66-FA52-4CB4-AF84-F73E78D9B257@privaterra.org> Marilia, What I mean by my earlier comment is that I believe that IGC MAG candidates should not only have extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group, but also have experience engaging in a multi-stakeholder fashion to advance civil society positions. It isn't enough just presenting our views, we also need to work with others in a diplomatic and constructive fashion. There will be areas of disagreement, but likely too there will be key areas of common interest that can be advanced. The secretariat, though well intentioned, is under resourced and counts on the support of MAG members to not only develop the annual IGF program but also to fundraise. As such, I would also add another skill that should be sought, that being the ability to engage with donors to help identify and possibly secure funding to support civil society participation at consultations and the annual IGF. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-03, at 7:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Robert and all, > > I raised the discussion about what is being currently debated in the WG on IGF improvements regarding MAG. I probably should have responded to this thread here, but it is under "selection of MAG-urgent". > You raised important points regarding the criteria of selection, Robert. I believe that "experience on IG issues" and "active participation in the IGF" are covered there, but I am not sure what you mean by multistakeholder support. We are considering so far that MAG candidates should have "Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if possible, to other stakeholder groups". Not sure if this covers what you pointed out. > > Marília > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Wolfgang, > > A question that first needs to be answered is what regional system will be used to select MAG members. > > The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) is one of several unofficial Regional Groups in the United Nations that act as voting blocs and negotiation forums. It's been used in the past, and my guess is that it might be the system taken into consideration in the MAG selection process. > > ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group > > I would hope that gender and region of origin aren't the only selection factors. Hopefully language skills, IGF experience, and multi-stakeholder support (if any) are also taken into consideration. > > The even larger question at this point is - when will the new MAG members be announced. Will we know in advance of the consultation in Feb, or will that decision come afterwards.. > > > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-02, at 2:00 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > Hi > > > > just to add one point: > > > > In ICANNs NomCom we made a difference between citizenship and residence and it was up to the candidate to select whether he wanted to be treated on citizenship or residence. > > > > In the Case of Bill Drake - I strongly support his nomination - I think he should be treated as European. He lives in Europe since more than ten years. He was a member of the Board of EURALO. He was invited as a European expert by the Council of Europe and he teaches at the University of Zürich and in the European Summer School on Internet Governnace. > > > > Best wishes > > > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Valeria Betancourt > > Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 09:21 > > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Betreff: Re: [governance] Fwd: MAG and CSTD WG meetings > > > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > You are right. We presented APC's nominations to the NomCom for consideration on Jan 20th. > > > > Valeria > > > > > > On 02/02/2012, at 3:13, William Drake wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > > > I'll also be in Geneva. > > > > > > > > And I live here. > > > > My thanks to the nomcom for including me. Of course, since IGC and APC both nominated me three times prior, there's obviously no guarantee that UN NY will change its apparent practice of reserving any slots for US citizens for TC and business, but it's nice to be nominated anyway. > > > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 1:31 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. > > > > > > I agree with others there should be clearer procedures and reporting requirements for IGC's nomcoms, as there are inter alia for ICANN's. This has been a recurrent issue not only with the selection of MAG candidates, but also the WGIGF and if I recall correctly WGIG... > > > > > > Things like: we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to nominate themselves and others, > > > > > > There were messages on the list from Jacqueline, Sala, I believe Izumi, maybe others...? Maybe more of an ongoing thread would have been desirable.... > > > > > > pulbicize the process and perhaps the list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all developments, ...... > > > > > > Sure > > > > > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the past). > > > > > > Valeria can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe APC did submit these to IGC and report them on the list. They included > > > > Africa: Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications, South Africa > > Asia: Shahzad Ahmad, BytesForAll, Pakistan > > LAC: Magaly Pazello, Center on Communication and Emergence, Brazil; Carlos Afonso, Instituto Nupef, Brazil > > North America and Europe: William Drake, University of Zurich, Switzerland; David Souter, ict Development Associates, United Kingdom > > > > Speaking of transparency, it would also be nice to have some idea how UN NY makes its selections, but we've been saying that for six years to no end... > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *************************************************** > > William J. Drake > > International Fellow & Lecturer > > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > > University of Zurich, Switzerland > > william.drake at uzh.ch > > www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake > > 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 > > > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 16:22:27 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:22:27 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <4F2BE253.8050305@apc.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> <4F2BC262.5020103@apc.org> <4F2BDAC3.1050501@apc.org> <4F2BE253.8050305@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear All, Thank you everyone for suggested improvements on MAG Selection from individuals and also those developed outside the IGC. Thank you Marilia for alerting us to the draft text that was developed by the Working Group on IGF Improvements. This will be a separate discussion and one that will definitely be looked into by the IGC. Once we set up a discussion platform "wiki style" on the IGC website, the IGC will be invited to comment and encourage discussion and dialogue around the area. There are numerous processes that require constant improvement to ensure that the IGC Charter Objectives are met and that is to promote *global public interest* objectives in Internet Governance Policy making. The use of the word of "Global" makes "representation" a key issue to properly represent the various geographical regions as they are able to advocate on issues that affect these regions specifically. The issues of selection criteria can be properly debated and teased out within the list. The NomCom in this instance have concluded their selection process. The IGC during the process made suggestions through the email on the criteria. On one view it is unethical to "influence" the critera whilst selection as the criteria should be developed prior to the appointment of the NomCom. For this, I apologise to the list for the oversight. Moving forward, I would like to re-iterate for the record that suggestions for NomCom improvement are not criticisms against the NomCom who have done what they were commissioned to do, which is to select Nominees. The absence of a Guideline is not their fault and neither is it their task nor mission. Their role is strictly confined to selection. Please allow me to take this time to thank Jacqueline and her Team for their work. Now that the Selection Process has been concluded, it is only proper that we wait for the Report by the NomCom Chair. As much as possible whilst the issues are related, that is of current selection and improvements to the process, I would like to keep these discussions "separate". Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks so much for checking the document carefully Marilia.. and going > back to the earlier version as well.. > > I checked the new version of the document and this text is still there, > on page 11. We will need to make sure that it is not just put at the > bottom of a long check list in the final report :) > > Best > > Anriette > > > > > On 03/02/12 15:23, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Hi Anriette, > > > > I totally agree with you. This was one of the points that Carlos Affonso > > and I raised on the paper we wrote to APC about challenges for CS > > participation. We did some research about why tech and academic were > > grouped together, but I would love to hear the background story from > > Bill ;) > > > > Anyway, the important thing is that we propose it and the > > representatives of the technical & academic community in the WG did > > agree that it would be the bast way to go. > > > > I searched Peter's older document and the proposal is > > there: "Stakeholder groups should strive for geographic diversity, > > gender balance, and developing country representation. Stakeholder > > groups should also strive to reflect their internal diversity separating > > technical community and academic community", so I just probably missed > > the last part of the sentence when I pasted it. > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > > > > Dear Marilia > > > > Thanks for posting this text from the WG report... one proposal that > we > > had made in the WG, which I don't see reflected in the current draft > > text, is that we increase civil society representation through > treating > > the technical community and the academic community as two distinct > > stakeholder groups, each entitled to its own representatives. > > > > Bill can explain the history of how the rather fuzzy 'technical and > > academic' category developed... > > > > But my concern is that currently civil society is having to share our > > 'places' between civil society organisations and individual civil > > society activists from the academic community. I am not at all > unhappy > > about us doing this as many people who are academics are also active > in > > civil society, and they add a lot of value to multi-stakeholder > > processes... but I think we need and deserve to have both groups > > represented separately. Currently civil society is under-represented > in > > the MAG and I believe it is essential to change this. > > > > If the academic community is treated as a category in its own right > we > > would then have the following non-governmental stakeholder groups > > represented in the MAG: > > > > Civil society (drawing from people in organised civil society) > > Academic community > > Technical community > > Business > > > > This would deepen multi-stakeholder participation in my view. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > On 03/02/12 14:42, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Congratulations to the tentative list of nominees. Thanks to > > NomCom for > > > performing this important task and thanks in advance for the > > report they > > > are producing. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know, one of the topics that are being discussed in the WG > > on IGF > > > improvements is precisely the process for nominating MAG members > > and the > > > role of MAG. MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a > > > strengthened IGF and the next group of selected MAG members will be > > > invited to find concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the > > > suggestions for improvement that will come out of the WG. That is > > to say > > > that, in my view, the next group of MAG members will be appointed > in a > > > crucial moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is very important that they are supported by the community and > that > > > they are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The > > selection > > > process is important on this regard, as it puts in place an > important > > > cornerstone. This is why this process needs to be documented and > that > > > the parameters for selection need to be made clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > The WG has been discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and > > also > > > some of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a > > > compilation (rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, > not > > > only as a contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of > these > > > topics could be covered in their report, it would be great, as we > > would > > > be walking the talk), but also for discussion. From this thread I > am > > > sure that this topic is a concern of the community, and it would be > > > great to have feedback about what is being discussed in the WG > > about it. > > > The report will probably be structured with broad agreements as > > > "headlines", further detailed on more specific proposals. > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > * > > > * > > > > > > *B.II – MAG* > > > > > > *Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep > MAG > > > meetings transparent * > > > > > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings* > > > > > > - The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its > > proceedings > > > available in the form of a live text streaming. This verbatim > > record is > > > available on the IGF Web site. This proceeding is recommended for > > future > > > meetings in order to enhance the openness and transparency of its > > work. > > > > > > - Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year, > > should > > > be preserved, with a three-year limit to each member’s term in > > order to > > > provide opportunities to all interested participants and to ensure > > fair > > > representation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done > in a > > > transparent and documented fashion * > > > > > > *Broad agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each > > > stakeholder group* > > > > > > - In light of transparency, stakeholder groups should publicise > their > > > selection process and should identify the process that works best > for > > > their own culture and methods of engagement > > > > > > - Selection of any stakeholder group may not be confined to be > > mediated > > > through any one particular body. > > > > > > - The selection would be based on proposed candidate lists made by > the > > > three non-governmental stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups > are > > > encouraged to nominate a sufficiently large slate of candidates to > > > provide some flexibility in selection of MAG members and are asked > to > > > ensure appropriate gender balance > > > > > > - One possibility mentioned by the MAG group itself last November: > > > > > > - A form of 'triage' that would be used to ensure appropriate > > > geographical balance among MAG members. This 'triage' could be > carried > > > out by a trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, > perhaps > > > including some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted > > group > > > would work in active consultation with the respective stakeholder > > groups. > > > > > > The recommendation would then be submitted to the > > Secretary-General for > > > approval. One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be > > > submitted to the Secretary-General should be published on the IGF > > website. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Another selection process was mentioned capturing the essence of > the > > > NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection committee" to avoid > > > confusion with existing systems in other organizations. > > > > > > - The selection Committee members, appointed by the IGF > Chair, > > > should be drawn fairly from representatives of stakeholders across > the > > > different regions and constituencies. > > > > > > Preferably, the Selection Committee would include experts with > > > wide-ranging knowledge of Internet governance, previous experience > of > > > program preparation and strong links to various stakeholder groups. > > > > > > This Selection Committee would select candidates for the MAG > ensuring > > > balanced representation of geographical distribution, gender and > the > > > wide range of stakeholders. The final selection of candidates > > should be > > > submitted to the UN Secretary-General for final approval. > > > > > > Open and transparent selection process and working process > > > > > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of Reference. * > > > > > > > > > > > > Requirements for MAG members: > > > > > > Potential stakeholder representatives should represent groups’ or > > > constituencies’ interest and not private interests. > > > > > > Selected members should present: > > > > > > - Proven ability to work as a team member > > > > > > - Active participation in the IGF process > > > > > > - Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if > > > possible, to other stakeholder groups > > > > > > - Experience and expertise in Internet governance issues > > > > > > > > > > > > Responsibilities of MAG members: > > > > > > - Attend three meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the > yearly > > > global meeting; > > > > > > - Participate in inter-sessional work; > > > > > > - Make outreach to wider community, including national and > > regional IGF > > > type initiatives and bring other networks into the MAG; > > > > > > - Bring in comments from the community; > > > > > > - Explain recommendations to the community. > > > > > > - Willingness to commit to work and follow through > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Responsibilities of the MAG as a whole: > > > > > > - guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of service, rotations, > > > performance criteria such as removal/replacement of MAG members > > that do > > > not participate) > > > > > > - Develop the detailed programme including the identification of > > issues > > > of concern; > > > > > > - Selecting workshops and other meetings; > > > > > > - Defining how best to plan and organize the meetings; > > > > > > - Organizing main sessions and where necessary participate in > > dedicated > > > thematic working groups; > > > > > > - Establishing linkages between workshops and main sessions; > > > > > > - Facilitating the organization of workshops; > > > > > > - Coordinating panels and supporting panellists, moderators and > > speakers > > > at the annual meeting; > > > > > > - Liaising with their respective communities; > > > > > > -Publishing reports. > > > > > > - Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction > with > > > secretariat > > > > > > > > > > > > Miscellaneous: > > > > > > - Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic > committee. > > > > > > - Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF > > and in > > > the context of IGF improvements and the recommendations for IGF > > > improvements. > > > > > > - Consider relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and > > > responsibilities > > > > > > - Consider the role of the MAG in context of IGF no longer being > > just a > > > single event but rather having evolved into a process. > > > > > > - Consider mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient. > > > > > > - Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator > and > > > listener of what happens in consultations, important input into > > the process > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Parminder and all > > > > > > On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote: > > > > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. > > > > > > Yes.. congrats to all. > > > > > > > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome > and > > > > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's > questions > > > below. > > > > > > Yes, so do I. > > > > > > > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its > > processes > > > > must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just > forthe > > > > process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen > the > > > kind of > > > > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, > > out-reach > > > effort > > > > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. > > Things > > > like: > > > > we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage > > people to > > > > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and > > perhaps the > > > > list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to > > various CS > > > > entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all > > > > developments, ...... > > > > > > > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of > > names to the > > > > IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit > their > > > nominees > > > > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has > > happened in the > > > > past). > > > > > > Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC > > nomcom as > > > we think the IGC selection is an important one. We are not > > sure that > > > the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any > > > acknowledgement. > > > > > > One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we > > are happy > > > to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a > 'non-MAG' > > > member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for > > > development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does > make > > > the MAG. > > > > > > The other people on our list were (as Bill posted). > > > > > > Carlos Afonso (Brazil) > > > Magaly Pazello (Brazil) > > > Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan) > > > Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa) > > > David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD) > > > > > > We will send these directly to the secretariat as well. > > > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > > > > > Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the > > > > final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. > > And in the > > > > civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very > > live and > > > > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from > it. At > > > times, > > > > like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered > the > > > single > > > > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard > to > > > live up > > > > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am > > > really not > > > > sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be > corrected. > > > > > > > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements > > we have > > > been > > > > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach > > effort, > > > broad > > > > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we > > need to > > > > practise what we preach. > > > > > > > > Among many other things, I also could not understand the > meaning > > > and use > > > > of having candidates submit their information in the > > 'required' format > > > > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required > > information > > > > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of > > nominees? > > > > > > > > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little > > later... > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> Good names all. > > > >> > > > >> But, > > > >> > > > >> What process was used? > > > >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing > > that? > > > >> Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are > they > > > posted on the web site anywhere? > > > >> Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of > IGC > > > expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted > somewhere? > > > >> > > > >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining > > everything in > > > detail. Did I miss that? > > > >> > > > >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous > > at best > > > >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this > > selection > > > risks that even further. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> avri > > > >> > > > >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Dear All, > > > >>> > > > >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the > > NomCom > > > are as follows: > > > >>> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > > > >>> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > > > >>> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > > > >>> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > > > >>> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > > > >>> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > > > >>> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > > > >>> > > > >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send > > their > > > information in via the required template would mean that their > > > names would not be sent. > > > >>> > > > >>> Kind Regards > > > >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> Dear All, > > > >>> > > > >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > > > >>> > > > >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise > that > > > they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to > > receive the > > > information in the required format and an email was sent out > > to the > > > potential candidates to submit their information in the > template > > > shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that > > > failing to have the information submitted in required format > could > > > mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been > > given > > > 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. > > > >>> > > > >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January > 2012. > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > >>> > > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > >>> > > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > > > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >>> > > > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > > > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >>> > > > >>> Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > > > > > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > > www.apc.org > > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > > south africa > > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 3 17:59:27 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 17:59:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F29D974.8060406@itforchange.net> <4F2BC262.5020103@apc.org> <4F2BDAC3.1050501@apc.org> <4F2BE253.8050305@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, I would like to point out that this Nomcom was initiated many many months ago in 2011 so that we would be ready for when the question was asked. They had lots of time for the discussion of criteria. They did not need to do it all rushed in the last 3 weeks. I have no objection to changing the chartered rules when it makes sense. But when people do not seem to be following them. one wonders whether we might not start following the rules first so that we know what we need to change and why. I am sort of a member of the appeals time, and perhaps this is all an issue for the Appeals Team. No one has brought a complaint and we have not talked about it among ourselves. Perhaps we should. The Appeals Team does as little as any other group in IGC (except for Jeremy who does lots of server etc work, yay!) Then again, am I a member of the Appeals team? I had a 1 year term that ended more than a year ago. The coordinator's just never held the choosing for replacements. This is the same for the entire non-Appeals Team. My suggestion: before we start changing the rules, lets using them. And to use them, we need to review them before we take on a task to make sure we understand the constraints on what we do. cheers, avri On 3 Feb 2012, at 16:22, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Thank you everyone for suggested improvements on MAG Selection from individuals and also those developed outside the IGC. > > Thank you Marilia for alerting us to the draft text that was developed by the Working Group on IGF Improvements. This will be a separate discussion and one that will definitely be looked into by the IGC. Once we set up a discussion platform "wiki style" on the IGC website, the IGC will be invited to comment and encourage discussion and dialogue around the area. > > There are numerous processes that require constant improvement to ensure that the IGC Charter Objectives are met and that is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet Governance Policy making. The use of the word of "Global" makes "representation" a key issue to properly represent the various geographical regions as they are able to advocate on issues that affect these regions specifically. The issues of selection criteria can be properly debated and teased out within the list. > > The NomCom in this instance have concluded their selection process. The IGC during the process made suggestions through the email on the criteria. On one view it is unethical to "influence" the critera whilst selection as the criteria should be developed prior to the appointment of the NomCom. For this, I apologise to the list for the oversight. > > Moving forward, I would like to re-iterate for the record that suggestions for NomCom improvement are not criticisms against the NomCom who have done what they were commissioned to do, which is to select Nominees. The absence of a Guideline is not their fault and neither is it their task nor mission. Their role is strictly confined to selection. Please allow me to take this time to thank Jacqueline and her Team for their work. > > Now that the Selection Process has been concluded, it is only proper that we wait for the Report by the NomCom Chair. As much as possible whilst the issues are related, that is of current selection and improvements to the process, I would like to keep these discussions "separate". > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks so much for checking the document carefully Marilia.. and going > back to the earlier version as well.. > > I checked the new version of the document and this text is still there, > on page 11. We will need to make sure that it is not just put at the > bottom of a long check list in the final report :) > > Best > > Anriette > > > > > On 03/02/12 15:23, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Hi Anriette, > > > > I totally agree with you. This was one of the points that Carlos Affonso > > and I raised on the paper we wrote to APC about challenges for CS > > participation. We did some research about why tech and academic were > > grouped together, but I would love to hear the background story from > > Bill ;) > > > > Anyway, the important thing is that we propose it and the > > representatives of the technical & academic community in the WG did > > agree that it would be the bast way to go. > > > > I searched Peter's older document and the proposal is > > there: "Stakeholder groups should strive for geographic diversity, > > gender balance, and developing country representation. Stakeholder > > groups should also strive to reflect their internal diversity separating > > technical community and academic community", so I just probably missed > > the last part of the sentence when I pasted it. > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > > > > Dear Marilia > > > > Thanks for posting this text from the WG report... one proposal that we > > had made in the WG, which I don't see reflected in the current draft > > text, is that we increase civil society representation through treating > > the technical community and the academic community as two distinct > > stakeholder groups, each entitled to its own representatives. > > > > Bill can explain the history of how the rather fuzzy 'technical and > > academic' category developed... > > > > But my concern is that currently civil society is having to share our > > 'places' between civil society organisations and individual civil > > society activists from the academic community. I am not at all unhappy > > about us doing this as many people who are academics are also active in > > civil society, and they add a lot of value to multi-stakeholder > > processes... but I think we need and deserve to have both groups > > represented separately. Currently civil society is under-represented in > > the MAG and I believe it is essential to change this. > > > > If the academic community is treated as a category in its own right we > > would then have the following non-governmental stakeholder groups > > represented in the MAG: > > > > Civil society (drawing from people in organised civil society) > > Academic community > > Technical community > > Business > > > > This would deepen multi-stakeholder participation in my view. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > On 03/02/12 14:42, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > Congratulations to the tentative list of nominees. Thanks to > > NomCom for > > > performing this important task and thanks in advance for the > > report they > > > are producing. > > > > > > > > > > > > As you know, one of the topics that are being discussed in the WG > > on IGF > > > improvements is precisely the process for nominating MAG members > > and the > > > role of MAG. MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a > > > strengthened IGF and the next group of selected MAG members will be > > > invited to find concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the > > > suggestions for improvement that will come out of the WG. That is > > to say > > > that, in my view, the next group of MAG members will be appointed in a > > > crucial moment. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is very important that they are supported by the community and that > > > they are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The > > selection > > > process is important on this regard, as it puts in place an important > > > cornerstone. This is why this process needs to be documented and that > > > the parameters for selection need to be made clear. > > > > > > > > > > > > The WG has been discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and > > also > > > some of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a > > > compilation (rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, not > > > only as a contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of these > > > topics could be covered in their report, it would be great, as we > > would > > > be walking the talk), but also for discussion. From this thread I am > > > sure that this topic is a concern of the community, and it would be > > > great to have feedback about what is being discussed in the WG > > about it. > > > The report will probably be structured with broad agreements as > > > "headlines", further detailed on more specific proposals. > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > * > > > * > > > > > > *B.II – MAG* > > > > > > *Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG > > > meetings transparent * > > > > > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings* > > > > > > - The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its > > proceedings > > > available in the form of a live text streaming. This verbatim > > record is > > > available on the IGF Web site. This proceeding is recommended for > > future > > > meetings in order to enhance the openness and transparency of its > > work. > > > > > > - Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year, > > should > > > be preserved, with a three-year limit to each member’s term in > > order to > > > provide opportunities to all interested participants and to ensure > > fair > > > representation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a > > > transparent and documented fashion * > > > > > > *Broad agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each > > > stakeholder group* > > > > > > - In light of transparency, stakeholder groups should publicise their > > > selection process and should identify the process that works best for > > > their own culture and methods of engagement > > > > > > - Selection of any stakeholder group may not be confined to be > > mediated > > > through any one particular body. > > > > > > - The selection would be based on proposed candidate lists made by the > > > three non-governmental stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups are > > > encouraged to nominate a sufficiently large slate of candidates to > > > provide some flexibility in selection of MAG members and are asked to > > > ensure appropriate gender balance > > > > > > - One possibility mentioned by the MAG group itself last November: > > > > > > - A form of 'triage' that would be used to ensure appropriate > > > geographical balance among MAG members. This 'triage' could be carried > > > out by a trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, perhaps > > > including some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted > > group > > > would work in active consultation with the respective stakeholder > > groups. > > > > > > The recommendation would then be submitted to the > > Secretary-General for > > > approval. One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be > > > submitted to the Secretary-General should be published on the IGF > > website. > > > > > > > > > > > > - Another selection process was mentioned capturing the essence of the > > > NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection committee" to avoid > > > confusion with existing systems in other organizations. > > > > > > - The selection Committee members, appointed by the IGF Chair, > > > should be drawn fairly from representatives of stakeholders across the > > > different regions and constituencies. > > > > > > Preferably, the Selection Committee would include experts with > > > wide-ranging knowledge of Internet governance, previous experience of > > > program preparation and strong links to various stakeholder groups. > > > > > > This Selection Committee would select candidates for the MAG ensuring > > > balanced representation of geographical distribution, gender and the > > > wide range of stakeholders. The final selection of candidates > > should be > > > submitted to the UN Secretary-General for final approval. > > > > > > Open and transparent selection process and working process > > > > > > > > > > > > *Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of Reference. * > > > > > > > > > > > > Requirements for MAG members: > > > > > > Potential stakeholder representatives should represent groups’ or > > > constituencies’ interest and not private interests. > > > > > > Selected members should present: > > > > > > - Proven ability to work as a team member > > > > > > - Active participation in the IGF process > > > > > > - Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if > > > possible, to other stakeholder groups > > > > > > - Experience and expertise in Internet governance issues > > > > > > > > > > > > Responsibilities of MAG members: > > > > > > - Attend three meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the yearly > > > global meeting; > > > > > > - Participate in inter-sessional work; > > > > > > - Make outreach to wider community, including national and > > regional IGF > > > type initiatives and bring other networks into the MAG; > > > > > > - Bring in comments from the community; > > > > > > - Explain recommendations to the community. > > > > > > - Willingness to commit to work and follow through > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Responsibilities of the MAG as a whole: > > > > > > - guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of service, rotations, > > > performance criteria such as removal/replacement of MAG members > > that do > > > not participate) > > > > > > - Develop the detailed programme including the identification of > > issues > > > of concern; > > > > > > - Selecting workshops and other meetings; > > > > > > - Defining how best to plan and organize the meetings; > > > > > > - Organizing main sessions and where necessary participate in > > dedicated > > > thematic working groups; > > > > > > - Establishing linkages between workshops and main sessions; > > > > > > - Facilitating the organization of workshops; > > > > > > - Coordinating panels and supporting panellists, moderators and > > speakers > > > at the annual meeting; > > > > > > - Liaising with their respective communities; > > > > > > -Publishing reports. > > > > > > - Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction with > > > secretariat > > > > > > > > > > > > Miscellaneous: > > > > > > - Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic committee. > > > > > > - Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF > > and in > > > the context of IGF improvements and the recommendations for IGF > > > improvements. > > > > > > - Consider relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and > > > responsibilities > > > > > > - Consider the role of the MAG in context of IGF no longer being > > just a > > > single event but rather having evolved into a process. > > > > > > - Consider mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient. > > > > > > - Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator and > > > listener of what happens in consultations, important input into > > the process > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Parminder and all > > > > > > On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote: > > > > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. > > > > > > Yes.. congrats to all. > > > > > > > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and > > > > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions > > > below. > > > > > > Yes, so do I. > > > > > > > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its > > processes > > > > must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe > > > > process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the > > > kind of > > > > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, > > out-reach > > > effort > > > > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. > > Things > > > like: > > > > we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage > > people to > > > > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and > > perhaps the > > > > list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to > > various CS > > > > entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all > > > > developments, ...... > > > > > > > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of > > names to the > > > > IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their > > > nominees > > > > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has > > happened in the > > > > past). > > > > > > Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC > > nomcom as > > > we think the IGC selection is an important one. We are not > > sure that > > > the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any > > > acknowledgement. > > > > > > One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we > > are happy > > > to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG' > > > member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for > > > development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does make > > > the MAG. > > > > > > The other people on our list were (as Bill posted). > > > > > > Carlos Afonso (Brazil) > > > Magaly Pazello (Brazil) > > > Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan) > > > Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa) > > > David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD) > > > > > > We will send these directly to the secretariat as well. > > > > > > Anriette > > > > > > > > > > > > Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the > > > > final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. > > And in the > > > > civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very > > live and > > > > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At > > > times, > > > > like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the > > > single > > > > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to > > > live up > > > > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am > > > really not > > > > sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected. > > > > > > > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements > > we have > > > been > > > > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach > > effort, > > > broad > > > > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we > > need to > > > > practise what we preach. > > > > > > > > Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning > > > and use > > > > of having candidates submit their information in the > > 'required' format > > > > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required > > information > > > > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of > > nominees? > > > > > > > > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little > > later... > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> Good names all. > > > >> > > > >> But, > > > >> > > > >> What process was used? > > > >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing > > that? > > > >> Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they > > > posted on the web site anywhere? > > > >> Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC > > > expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? > > > >> > > > >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining > > everything in > > > detail. Did I miss that? > > > >> > > > >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous > > at best > > > >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this > > selection > > > risks that even further. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> avri > > > >> > > > >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Dear All, > > > >>> > > > >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the > > NomCom > > > are as follows: > > > >>> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda > > > >>> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan > > > >>> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada > > > >>> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) > > > >>> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) > > > >>> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina > > > >>> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan > > > >>> > > > >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send > > their > > > information in via the required template would mean that their > > > names would not be sent. > > > >>> > > > >>> Kind Regards > > > >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> Dear All, > > > >>> > > > >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. > > > >>> > > > >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that > > > they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to > > receive the > > > information in the required format and an email was sent out > > to the > > > potential candidates to submit their information in the template > > > shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that > > > failing to have the information submitted in required format could > > > mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been > > given > > > 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. > > > >>> > > > >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > >>> > > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > >>> > > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >>> > > > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > > > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >>> > > > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > > > > > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > > www.apc.org > > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > > south africa > > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Fri Feb 3 19:14:04 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:14:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] Message-ID: <1328314444.62590.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All, I agree with Avri that "Nomcom had lots of time for the discussion of criteria.." [IAS] .. and to understand the IGC Charter and Criteria about the selection through NomCom. And I also agree with the Avri that "But when people do not seem to be following them. one wonders whether we might not start following the rules first so that we know what we need to change and why." Sala has acknowledged that the Objection on the NomCom decision has arrived. If the Objection is about the "not" following the IGC "Criteria". It is up to coordinators they just make the objection as Statistical Record in NomCom process Report or involve Appeal Team to review the NomCom decision and issue the amendment / reversion of selection results for immediate use. Appeal Team also have read the Acknowledgment of Complaint and may start working with close interaction with the IGC Coordinators to provide Justice. 'To delay justice, is injustice.' --WILLIAM PENN Thanks and Regards Imran Ahmed Shah [President IGFPAK] ------------------------------On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 3:59 AM PKT Avri Doria wrote:>Hi,>>I would like to point out that this Nomcom was initiated many many months ago in 2011 so that we would be ready for when the question was asked. They had lots of time for the discussion of criteria. They did not need to do it all rushed in the last 3 weeks. >>I have no objection to changing the chartered rules when it makes sense. But when people do not seem to be following them. one wonders whether we might not start following the rules first so that we know what we need to change and why.>>>I am sort of a member of the appeals time, and perhaps this is all an issue for the Appeals Team. No one has brought a complaint and we have not talked about it among ourselves. Perhaps we should. The Appeals Team does as little as any other group in IGC (except for Jeremy who does lots of server etc work, yay!) Then again, am I a member of the Appeals team? I had a 1 year term that ended more than a year ago. The coordinator's just never held the choosing for replacements. This is the same for the entire non-Appeals Team. >>My suggestion: before we start changing the rules, lets using them. And to use them, we need to review them before we take on a task to make sure we understand the constraints on what we do.>>cheers,>>avri>>>>On 3 Feb 2012, at 16:22, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>>> Dear All,>> >> Thank you everyone for suggested improvements on MAG Selection from individuals and also those developed outside the IGC. >> >> Thank you Marilia for alerting us to the draft text that was developed by the Working Group on IGF Improvements. This will be a separate discussion and one that will definitely be looked into by the IGC. Once we set up a discussion platform "wiki style" on the IGC website, the IGC will be invited to comment and encourage discussion and dialogue around the area.>> >> There are numerous processes that require constant improvement to ensure that the IGC Charter Objectives are met and that is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet Governance Policy making. The use of the word of "Global" makes "representation" a key issue to properly represent the various geographical regions as they are able to advocate on issues that affect these regions specifically. The issues of selection criteria can be properly debated and teased out within the list.>> >> The NomCom in this instance have concluded their selection process. The IGC during the process made suggestions through the email on the criteria. On one view it is unethical to "influence" the critera whilst selection as the criteria should be developed prior to the appointment of the NomCom. For this, I apologise to the list for the oversight.>> >> Moving forward, I would like to re-iterate for the record that suggestions for NomCom improvement are not criticisms against the NomCom who have done what they were commissioned to do, which is to select Nominees. The absence of a Guideline is not their fault and neither is it their task nor mission. Their role is strictly confined to selection. Please allow me to take this time to thank Jacqueline and her Team for their work.>> >> Now that the Selection Process has been concluded, it is only proper that we wait for the Report by the NomCom Chair. As much as possible whilst the issues are related, that is of current selection and improvements to the process, I would like to keep these discussions "separate".>> >> Kind Regards,>> Sala>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:>> Thanks so much for checking the document carefully Marilia.. and going>> back to the earlier version as well..>> >> I checked the new version of the document and this text is still there,>> on page 11. We will need to make sure that it is not just put at the>> bottom of a long check list in the final report :)>> >> Best>> >> Anriette>> >> >> >> >> On 03/02/12 15:23, Marilia Maciel wrote:>> > Hi Anriette,>> >>> > I totally agree with you. This was one of the points that Carlos Affonso>> > and I raised on the paper we wrote to APC about challenges for CS>> > participation. We did some research about why tech and academic were>> > grouped together, but I would love to hear the background story from>> > Bill ;)>> >>> > Anyway, the important thing is that we propose it and the>> > representatives of the technical & academic community in the WG did>> > agree that it would be the bast way to go.>> >>> > I searched Peter's older document and the proposal is>> > there: "Stakeholder groups should strive for geographic diversity,>> > gender balance, and developing country representation. Stakeholder>> > groups should also strive to reflect their internal diversity separating>> > technical community and academic community", so I just probably missed>> > the last part of the sentence when I pasted it.>> >>> > Marília>> >>> >>> >>> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote:>> >>> > Dear Marilia>> >>> > Thanks for posting this text from the WG report... one proposal that we>> > had made in the WG, which I don't see reflected in the current draft>> > text, is that we increase civil society representation through treating>> > the technical community and the academic community as two distinct>> > stakeholder groups, each entitled to its own representatives.>> >>> > Bill can explain the history of how the rather fuzzy 'technical and>> > academic' category developed...>> >>> > But my concern is that currently civil society is having to share our>> > 'places' between civil society organisations and individual civil>> > society activists from the academic community. I am not at all unhappy>> > about us doing this as many people who are academics are also active in>> > civil society, and they add a lot of value to multi-stakeholder>> > processes... but I think we need and deserve to have both groups>> > represented separately. Currently civil society is under-represented in>> > the MAG and I believe it is essential to change this.>> >>> > If the academic community is treated as a category in its own right we>> > would then have the following non-governmental stakeholder groups>> > represented in the MAG:>> >>> > Civil society (drawing from people in organised civil society)>> > Academic community>> > Technical community>> > Business>> >>> > This would deepen multi-stakeholder participation in my view.>> >>> > Anriette>> >>> >>> >>> > On 03/02/12 14:42, Marilia Maciel wrote:>> > > Congratulations to the tentative list of nominees. Thanks to>> > NomCom for>> > > performing this important task and thanks in advance for the>> > report they>> > > are producing.>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > As you know, one of the topics that are being discussed in the WG>> > on IGF>> > > improvements is precisely the process for nominating MAG members>> > and the>> > > role of MAG. MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a>> > > strengthened IGF and the next group of selected MAG members will be>> > > invited to find concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the>> > > suggestions for improvement that will come out of the WG. That is>> > to say>> > > that, in my view, the next group of MAG members will be appointed in a>> > > crucial moment.>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > It is very important that they are supported by the community and that>> > > they are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The>> > selection>> > > process is important on this regard, as it puts in place an important>> > > cornerstone. This is why this process needs to be documented and that>> > > the parameters for selection need to be made clear.>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > The WG has been discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and>> > also>> > > some of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a>> > > compilation (rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, not>> > > only as a contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of these>> > > topics could be covered in their report, it would be great, as we>> > would>> > > be walking the talk), but also for discussion. From this thread I am>> > > sure that this topic is a concern of the community, and it would be>> > > great to have feedback about what is being discussed in the WG>> > about it.>> > > The report will probably be structured with broad agreements as>> > > "headlines", further detailed on more specific proposals.>> > >>> > > Marília>> > >>> > > *>> > > *>> > >>> > > *B.II – MAG*>> > >>> > > *Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG>> > > meetings transparent *>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > *Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings*>> > >>> > > - The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its>> > proceedings>> > > available in the form of a live text streaming. This verbatim>> > record is>> > > available on the IGF Web site. This proceeding is recommended for>> > future>> > > meetings in order to enhance the openness and transparency of its>> > work.>> > >>> > > - Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year,>> > should>> > > be preserved, with a three-year limit to each member’s term in>> > order to>> > > provide opportunities to all interested participants and to ensure>> > fair>> > > representation>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > *Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a>> > > transparent and documented fashion *>> > >>> > > *Broad agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each>> > > stakeholder group*>> > >>> > > - In light of transparency, stakeholder groups should publicise their>> > > selection process and should identify the process that works best for>> > > their own culture and methods of engagement>> > >>> > > - Selection of any stakeholder group may not be confined to be>> > mediated>> > > through any one particular body.>> > >>> > > - The selection would be based on proposed candidate lists made by the>> > > three non-governmental stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups are>> > > encouraged to nominate a sufficiently large slate of candidates to>> > > provide some flexibility in selection of MAG members and are asked to>> > > ensure appropriate gender balance>> > >>> > > - One possibility mentioned by the MAG group itself last November:>> > >>> > > - A form of 'triage' that would be used to ensure appropriate>> > > geographical balance among MAG members. This 'triage' could be carried>> > > out by a trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, perhaps>> > > including some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted>> > group>> > > would work in active consultation with the respective stakeholder>> > groups.>> > >>> > > The recommendation would then be submitted to the>> > Secretary-General for>> > > approval. One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be>> > > submitted to the Secretary-General should be published on the IGF>> > website.>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > - Another selection process was mentioned capturing the essence of the>> > > NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection committee" to avoid>> > > confusion with existing systems in other organizations.>> > >>> > > - The selection Committee members, appointed by the IGF Chair,>> > > should be drawn fairly from representatives of stakeholders across the>> > > different regions and constituencies.>> > >>> > > Preferably, the Selection Committee would include experts with>> > > wide-ranging knowledge of Internet governance, previous experience of>> > > program preparation and strong links to various stakeholder groups.>> > >>> > > This Selection Committee would select candidates for the MAG ensuring>> > > balanced representation of geographical distribution, gender and the>> > > wide range of stakeholders. The final selection of candidates>> > should be>> > > submitted to the UN Secretary-General for final approval.>> > >>> > > Open and transparent selection process and working process>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > *Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of Reference. *>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Requirements for MAG members:>> > >>> > > Potential stakeholder representatives should represent groups’ or>> > > constituencies’ interest and not private interests.>> > >>> > > Selected members should present:>> > >>> > > - Proven ability to work as a team member>> > >>> > > - Active participation in the IGF process>> > >>> > > - Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if>> > > possible, to other stakeholder groups>> > >>> > > - Experience and expertise in Internet governance issues>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Responsibilities of MAG members:>> > >>> > > - Attend three meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the yearly>> > > global meeting;>> > >>> > > - Participate in inter-sessional work;>> > >>> > > - Make outreach to wider community, including national and>> > regional IGF>> > > type initiatives and bring other networks into the MAG;>> > >>> > > - Bring in comments from the community;>> > >>> > > - Explain recommendations to the community.>> > >>> > > - Willingness to commit to work and follow through>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Responsibilities of the MAG as a whole:>> > >>> > > - guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of service, rotations,>> > > performance criteria such as removal/replacement of MAG members>> > that do>> > > not participate)>> > >>> > > - Develop the detailed programme including the identification of>> > issues>> > > of concern;>> > >>> > > - Selecting workshops and other meetings;>> > >>> > > - Defining how best to plan and organize the meetings;>> > >>> > > - Organizing main sessions and where necessary participate in>> > dedicated>> > > thematic working groups;>> > >>> > > - Establishing linkages between workshops and main sessions;>> > >>> > > - Facilitating the organization of workshops;>> > >>> > > - Coordinating panels and supporting panellists, moderators and>> > speakers>> > > at the annual meeting;>> > >>> > > - Liaising with their respective communities;>> > >>> > > -Publishing reports.>> > >>> > > - Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction with>> > > secretariat>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Miscellaneous:>> > >>> > > - Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic committee.>> > >>> > > - Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF>> > and in>> > > the context of IGF improvements and the recommendations for IGF>> > > improvements.>> > >>> > > - Consider relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and>> > > responsibilities>> > >>> > > - Consider the role of the MAG in context of IGF no longer being>> > just a>> > > single event but rather having evolved into a process.>> > >>> > > - Consider mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient.>> > >>> > > - Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator and>> > > listener of what happens in consultations, important input into>> > the process>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen>> > >> > > > wrote:>> > >>> > > Dear Parminder and all>> > >>> > > On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote:>> > > > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list.>> > >>> > > Yes.. congrats to all.>> > > >>> > > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and>> > > > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions>> > > below.>> > >>> > > Yes, so do I.>> > >>> > > > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its>> > processes>> > > > must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe>> > > > process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the>> > > kind of>> > > > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency,>> > out-reach>> > > effort>> > > > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity.>> > Things>> > > like:>> > > > we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage>> > people to>> > > > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and>> > perhaps the>> > > > list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to>> > various CS>> > > > entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all>> > > > developments, ......>> > > >>> > > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of>> > names to the>> > > > IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their>> > > nominees>> > > > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has>> > happened in the>> > > > past).>> > >>> > > Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC>> > nomcom as>> > > we think the IGC selection is an important one. We are not>> > sure that>> > > the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any>> > > acknowledgement.>> > >>> > > One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we>> > are happy>> > > to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG'>> > > member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for>> > > development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does make>> > > the MAG.>> > >>> > > The other people on our list were (as Bill posted).>> > >>> > > Carlos Afonso (Brazil)>> > > Magaly Pazello (Brazil)>> > > Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan)>> > > Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa)>> > > David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD)>> > >>> > > We will send these directly to the secretariat as well.>> > >>> > > Anriette>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the>> > > > final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy.>> > And in the>> > > > civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very>> > live and>> > > > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At>> > > times,>> > > > like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the>> > > single>> > > > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to>> > > live up>> > > > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am>> > > really not>> > > > sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected.>> > > >>> > > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements>> > we have>> > > been>> > > > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach>> > effort,>> > > broad>> > > > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we>> > need to>> > > > practise what we preach.>> > > >>> > > > Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning>> > > and use>> > > > of having candidates submit their information in the>> > 'required' format>> > > > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required>> > information>> > > > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of>> > nominees?>> > > >>> > > > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little>> > later...>> > > > parminder>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote:>> > > > Hi,>> > > >>> > > > Good names all.>> > > >>> > > > But,>> > > >>> > > > What process was used?>> > > > Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing>> > that?>> > > > Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they>> > > posted on the web site anywhere?>> > > > Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC>> > > expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere?>> > > >>> > > > In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining>> > everything in>> > > detail. Did I miss that?>> > > >>> > > > The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous>> > at best>> > > > The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this>> > selection>> > > risks that even further.>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > avri>> > > >>> > > > On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> Dear All,>> > > >>>> > > >> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the>> > NomCom>> > > are as follows:>> > > >> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda>> > > >> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan>> > > >> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada>> > > >> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain)>> > > >> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva)>> > > >> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina>> > > >> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan>> > > >>>> > > >> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send>> > their>> > > information in via the required template would mean that their>> > > names would not be sent.>> > > >>>> > > >> Kind Regards>> > > >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro>> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > wrote:>> > > >> Dear All,>> > > >>>> > > >> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates.>> > > >>>> > > >> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that>> > > they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to>> > receive the>> > > information in the required format and an email was sent out>> > to the>> > > potential candidates to submit their information in the template>> > > shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that>> > > failing to have the information submitted in required format could>> > > mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been>> > given>> > > 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent.>> > > >>>> > > >> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012.>> > > >>>> > > >> -->> > > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>> > > >>>> > > >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> > > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> > > >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > >> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> -->> > > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>> > > >>>> > > >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> > > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> > > >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > >> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> ____________________________________________________________>> > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> > > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > >> To be removed from the list, visit:>> > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>> > > >>>> > > >> For all other list information and functions, see:>> > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/>> > > >>>> > > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>> > > >>>> > > >>> > >>> > > -->> > > ------------------------------------------------------>> > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org>> > > > >> > > executive director, association for progressive communications>> > > www.apc.org >> > > po box 29755, melville 2109>> > > south africa>> > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> > >> > >>> > >>> > > ____________________________________________________________>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> > >> > > > >> > > To be removed from the list, visit:>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>> > >>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:>> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/>> > >>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > -->> > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade>> > > FGV Direito Rio>> > >>> > > Center for Technology and Society>> > > Getulio Vargas Foundation>> > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil>> >>> > -->> > ------------------------------------------------------>> > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> > executive director, association for progressive communications>> > www.apc.org >> > po box 29755, melville 2109>> > south africa>> > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >>> >>> >>> >>> > -->> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade>> > FGV Direito Rio>> >>> > Center for Technology and Society>> > Getulio Vargas Foundation>> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil>> >> -->> ------------------------------------------------------>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org>> executive director, association for progressive communications>> www.apc.org>> po box 29755, melville 2109>> south africa>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>> >> For all other list information and functions, see:>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> To edit your 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 Feb 3 19:45:52 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 13:45:52 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <1328314444.62590.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1328314444.62590.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Imran, Please refer to my earlier emails in relation to how we will proceed. To allege that there has been a delay in administration of justice is over exaggeration. We, like everyone else, will patiently wait for the NomCom Chair to deliver their report. You have already sent us your email about your complaint and we are in receipt. Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Dear All, > I agree with Avri that "Nomcom had lots of time for the discussion of > criteria.." > > [IAS] .. and to understand the IGC Charter and Criteria about the > selection through NomCom. > > > And I also agree with the Avri that "But when people do not seem to be > following them. one wonders whether we might not start following the rules > first so that we know what we need to change and why." > > Sala has acknowledged that the Objection on the NomCom decision has > arrived. > > If the Objection is about the "not" following the IGC "Criteria". > > It is up to coordinators they just make the objection as Statistical > Record in NomCom process Report or involve Appeal Team to review the NomCom > decision and issue the amendment / reversion of selection results for > immediate use. > > Appeal Team also have read the Acknowledgment of Complaint and may start > working with close interaction with the IGC Coordinators to provide Justice. > > 'To delay justice, is injustice.' --WILLIAM PENN > > Thanks and Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > [President IGFPAK] > > ------------------------------On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 3:59 AM PKT Avri Doria > wrote:>Hi,>>I would like to point out that this Nomcom was initiated many > many months ago in 2011 so that we would be ready for when the question was > asked. They had lots of time for the discussion of criteria. They did not > need to do it all rushed in the last 3 weeks. >>I have no objection to > changing the chartered rules when it makes sense. But when people do not > seem to be following them. one wonders whether we might not start following > the rules first so that we know what we need to change and why.>>>I am sort > of a member of the appeals time, and perhaps this is all an issue for the > Appeals Team. No one has brought a complaint and we have not talked about > it among ourselves. Perhaps we should. The Appeals Team does as little as > any other group in IGC (except for Jeremy who does lots of server etc work, > yay!) Then again, am I a member of the Appeals team? I had a 1 year > term that ended more than a year ago. The coordinator's just never held > the choosing for replacements. This is the same for the entire non-Appeals > Team. >>My suggestion: before we start changing the rules, lets using them. > And to use them, we need to review them before we take on a task to make > sure we understand the constraints on what we do.>>cheers,>>avri>>>>On 3 > Feb 2012, at 16:22, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>>> Dear All,>> >> > Thank you everyone for suggested improvements on MAG Selection from > individuals and also those developed outside the IGC. >> >> Thank you > Marilia for alerting us to the draft text that was developed by the Working > Group on IGF Improvements. This will be a separate discussion and one that > will definitely be looked into by the IGC. Once we set up a discussion > platform "wiki style" on the IGC website, the IGC will be invited to > comment and encourage discussion and dialogue around the area.>> >> There > are numerous > processes that require constant improvement to ensure that the IGC > Charter Objectives are met and that is to promote global public interest > objectives in Internet Governance Policy making. The use of the word of > "Global" makes "representation" a key issue to properly represent the > various geographical regions as they are able to advocate on issues that > affect these regions specifically. The issues of selection criteria can be > properly debated and teased out within the list.>> >> The NomCom in this > instance have concluded their selection process. The IGC during the process > made suggestions through the email on the criteria. On one view it is > unethical to "influence" the critera whilst selection as the criteria > should be developed prior to the appointment of the NomCom. For this, I > apologise to the list for the oversight.>> >> Moving forward, I would like > to re-iterate for the record that suggestions for NomCom improvement are > not criticisms against the > NomCom who have done what they were commissioned to do, which is to > select Nominees. The absence of a Guideline is not their fault and neither > is it their task nor mission. Their role is strictly confined to selection. > Please allow me to take this time to thank Jacqueline and her Team for > their work.>> >> Now that the Selection Process has been concluded, it is > only proper that we wait for the Report by the NomCom Chair. As much as > possible whilst the issues are related, that is of current selection and > improvements to the process, I would like to keep these discussions > "separate".>> >> Kind Regards,>> Sala>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:34 AM, > Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:>> Thanks so much for > checking the document carefully Marilia.. and going>> back to the earlier > version as well..>> >> I checked the new version of the document and this > text is still there,>> on page 11. We will need to make sure that it is not > just put at the>> > bottom of a long check list in the final report :)>> >> Best>> >> > Anriette>> >> >> >> >> On 03/02/12 15:23, Marilia Maciel wrote:>> > Hi > Anriette,>> >>> > I totally agree with you. This was one of the points that > Carlos Affonso>> > and I raised on the paper we wrote to APC about > challenges for CS>> > participation. We did some research about why tech > and academic were>> > grouped together, but I would love to hear the > background story from>> > Bill ;)>> >>> > Anyway, the important thing is > that we propose it and the>> > representatives of the technical & academic > community in the WG did>> > agree that it would be the bast way to go.>> > >>> > I searched Peter's older document and the proposal is>> > there: > "Stakeholder groups should strive for geographic diversity,>> > gender > balance, and developing country representation. Stakeholder>> > groups > should also strive to reflect their internal diversity separating>> > > technical community and academic > community", so I just probably missed>> > the last part of the sentence > when I pasted it.>> >>> > Marília>> >>> >>> >>> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at > 11:01 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen > > anriette at apc.org> wrote:>> >>> > Dear Marilia>> >>> > Thanks for > posting this text from the WG report... one proposal that we>> > had > made in the WG, which I don't see reflected in the current draft>> > > text, is that we increase civil society representation through treating>> > > the technical community and the academic community as two distinct>> > > stakeholder groups, each entitled to its own representatives.>> >>> > > Bill can explain the history of how the rather fuzzy 'technical and>> > > academic' category developed...>> >>> > But my concern is that > currently civil society is having to share our>> > 'places' between > civil society organisations and individual civil>> > society activists > from the academic > community. I am not at all unhappy>> > about us doing this as many > people who are academics are also active in>> > civil society, and they > add a lot of value to multi-stakeholder>> > processes... but I think we > need and deserve to have both groups>> > represented separately. > Currently civil society is under-represented in>> > the MAG and I > believe it is essential to change this.>> >>> > If the academic > community is treated as a category in its own right we>> > would then > have the following non-governmental stakeholder groups>> > represented > in the MAG:>> >>> > Civil society (drawing from people in organised > civil society)>> > Academic community>> > Technical community>> > > Business>> >>> > This would deepen multi-stakeholder participation in > my view.>> >>> > Anriette>> >>> >>> >>> > On 03/02/12 14:42, > Marilia Maciel wrote:>> > > Congratulations to the tentative list of > nominees. Thanks to>> > > NomCom for>> > > performing this important task and thanks in > advance for the>> > report they>> > > are producing.>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > As you know, one of the topics that are being > discussed in the WG>> > on IGF>> > > improvements is precisely the > process for nominating MAG members>> > and the>> > > role of MAG. > MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a>> > > strengthened IGF > and the next group of selected MAG members will be>> > > invited to > find concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the>> > > suggestions > for improvement that will come out of the WG. That is>> > to say>> > > > that, in my view, the next group of MAG members will be appointed in > a>> > > crucial moment.>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > It is > very important that they are supported by the community and that>> > > > they are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The>> > > selection>> > > process is important on this regard, as it puts in > place an important>> > > cornerstone. This is why this process needs to > be documented and that>> > > the parameters for selection need to be > made clear.>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > The WG has been > discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and>> > also>> > > > some of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a>> > > > compilation (rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, not>> > > > only as a contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of > these>> > > topics could be covered in their report, it would be great, > as we>> > would>> > > be walking the talk), but also for > discussion. From this thread I am>> > > sure that this topic is a > concern of the community, and it would be>> > > great to have feedback > about what is being discussed in the WG>> > about it.>> > > The > report will probably be > structured with broad agreements as>> > > "headlines", further > detailed on more specific proposals.>> > >>> > > Marília>> > > >>> > > *>> > > *>> > >>> > > *B.II – MAG*>> > >>> > > > *Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep > MAG>> > > meetings transparent *>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > *Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings*>> > > >>> > > - The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its>> > > proceedings>> > > available in the form of a live text streaming. > This verbatim>> > record is>> > > available on the IGF Web site. > This proceeding is recommended for>> > future>> > > meetings in > order to enhance the openness and transparency of its>> > work.>> > > >>> > > - Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every > year,>> > should>> > > be preserved, with a three-year limit to each > member’s term in>> > order to>> > > provide opportunities to all > interested participants and to ensure>> > fair>> > > > representation>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > *Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a>> > > > transparent and documented fashion *>> > >>> > > *Broad > agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each>> > > > stakeholder group*>> > >>> > > - In light of transparency, > stakeholder groups should publicise their>> > > selection process and > should identify the process that works best for>> > > their own culture > and methods of engagement>> > >>> > > - Selection of any > stakeholder group may not be confined to be>> > mediated>> > > > through any one particular body.>> > >>> > > - The selection would > be based on proposed candidate lists made by the>> > > three > non-governmental stakeholder groups. The > stakeholder groups are>> > > encouraged to nominate a sufficiently > large slate of candidates to>> > > provide some flexibility in > selection of MAG members and are asked to>> > > ensure appropriate > gender balance>> > >>> > > - One possibility mentioned by the MAG > group itself last November:>> > >>> > > - A form of 'triage' > that would be used to ensure appropriate>> > > geographical balance > among MAG members. This 'triage' could be carried>> > > out by a > trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, perhaps>> > > > including some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted>> > > group>> > > would work in active consultation with the respective > stakeholder>> > groups.>> > >>> > > The recommendation would > then be submitted to the>> > Secretary-General for>> > > approval. > One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be>> > > > submitted to the Secretary-General > should be published on the IGF>> > website.>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > - Another selection process was mentioned capturing the > essence of the>> > > NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection > committee" to avoid>> > > confusion with existing systems in other > organizations.>> > >>> > > - The selection Committee > members, appointed by the IGF Chair,>> > > should be drawn fairly from > representatives of stakeholders across the>> > > different regions and > constituencies.>> > >>> > > Preferably, the Selection Committee > would include experts with>> > > wide-ranging knowledge of Internet > governance, previous experience of>> > > program preparation and strong > links to various stakeholder groups.>> > >>> > > This Selection > Committee would select candidates for the MAG ensuring>> > > balanced > representation of geographical distribution, gender and the>> > > wide > range of stakeholders. > The final selection of candidates>> > should be>> > > submitted > to the UN Secretary-General for final approval.>> > >>> > > Open > and transparent selection process and working process>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > *Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of > Reference. *>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Requirements for MAG > members:>> > >>> > > Potential stakeholder representatives should > represent groups’ or>> > > constituencies’ interest and not private > interests.>> > >>> > > Selected members should present:>> > >>> > > > - Proven ability to work as a team member>> > >>> > > - > Active participation in the IGF process>> > >>> > > - Extensive > linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if>> > > possible, to > other stakeholder groups>> > >>> > > - Experience and expertise in > Internet governance issues>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > Responsibilities of MAG members:>> > >>> > > - Attend three > meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the yearly>> > > global > meeting;>> > >>> > > - Participate in inter-sessional work;>> > > >>> > > - Make outreach to wider community, including national and>> > > regional IGF>> > > type initiatives and bring other networks into > the MAG;>> > >>> > > - Bring in comments from the community;>> > > >>> > > - Explain recommendations to the community.>> > >>> > > > - Willingness to commit to work and follow through>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Responsibilities of the MAG as a > whole:>> > >>> > > - guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of > service, rotations,>> > > performance criteria such as > removal/replacement of MAG members>> > that do>> > > not > participate)>> > >>> > > - Develop the detailed programme including > the identification of>> > > issues>> > > of concern;>> > >>> > > - Selecting workshops > and other meetings;>> > >>> > > - Defining how best to plan and > organize the meetings;>> > >>> > > - Organizing main sessions and > where necessary participate in>> > dedicated>> > > thematic working > groups;>> > >>> > > - Establishing linkages between workshops and > main sessions;>> > >>> > > - Facilitating the organization of > workshops;>> > >>> > > - Coordinating panels and supporting > panellists, moderators and>> > speakers>> > > at the annual > meeting;>> > >>> > > - Liaising with their respective > communities;>> > >>> > > -Publishing reports.>> > >>> > > - > Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction with>> > > > secretariat>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Miscellaneous:>> > > >>> > > - Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic > committee.>> > >>> > > > - Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF>> > > and in>> > > the context of IGF improvements and the recommendations > for IGF>> > > improvements.>> > >>> > > - Consider > relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and>> > > > responsibilities>> > >>> > > - Consider the role of the MAG in > context of IGF no longer being>> > just a>> > > single event but > rather having evolved into a process.>> > >>> > > - Consider > mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient.>> > >>> > > - > Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator and>> > > > listener of what happens in consultations, important input into>> > > the process>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > On Fri, Feb > 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen>> > anriette at apc.org>>> > > anriette at apc.org>> wrote:>> > >>> > > > Dear Parminder and all>> > >>> > > On 02/02/12 02:31, > parminder wrote:>> > > > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good > list.>> > >>> > > Yes.. congrats to all.>> > > >>> > > > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome > and>> > > > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's > questions>> > > below.>> > >>> > > Yes, so do I.>> > > >>> > > > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and > its>> > processes>> > > > must be taken very very seriously, > even if sometimes just forthe>> > > > process's sake. I may be > wrong, but I seem not to have seen the>> > > kind of>> > > > > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency,>> > > out-reach>> > > effort>> > > > etc that is required for the > nomination/ election activity.>> > Things>> > > like:>> > > > > we > need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage>> > people to>> > > > > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and>> > > perhaps the>> > > > list of nomcom members as well, make active > out reach to>> > various CS>> > > > entities inviting > nomination, keeping the list posted of all>> > > > developments, > ......>> > > >>> > > > For instance, APC I am sure will > forward its own slate of>> > names to the>> > > > IGF > secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their>> > > > nominees>> > > > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this > has>> > happened in the>> > > > past).>> > >>> > > > Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC>> > > nomcom as>> > > we think the IGC selection is an important one. We > are not>> > sure that>> > > the IGC nomcom considered our list > as did not receive > any>> > > acknowledgement.>> > >>> > > One person on > our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we>> > are happy>> > > > to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG'>> > > > member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for>> > > > development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does > make>> > > the MAG.>> > >>> > > The other people on our > list were (as Bill posted).>> > >>> > > Carlos Afonso > (Brazil)>> > > Magaly Pazello (Brazil)>> > > Shahzad Ahmad > (Pakistan)>> > > Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa)>> > > > David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD)>> > >>> > > We will send > these directly to the secretariat as well.>> > >>> > > > Anriette>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > Enriching our > catchment of potential candidates and thus the>> > > > final list > in this way greatly > enhances IGC's legitimacy.>> > And in the>> > > > civil > society space legitimacy building and losing is a very>> > live and>> > > > > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. > At>> > > times,>> > > > like for the WG on IGF > improvements, IGC has been considered the>> > > single>> > > > > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to>> > > > live up>> > > > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned > by Avri. And I am>> > > really not>> > > > sure if we did > in this case, though I am happy to be corrected.>> > > >>> > > > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements>> > we > have>> > > been>> > > > seeking higher transparency, > focussed and active out reach>> > effort,>> > > broad>> > > > > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we>> > > need to>> > > > > practise what we preach.>> > > >>> > > > Among many > other things, I also could not understand the meaning>> > > and > use>> > > > of having candidates submit their information in the>> > > 'required' format>> > > > after the list of nominees is > published. Isnt the required>> > information>> > > > supposed > to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of>> > nominees?>> > > > >>> > > > There a few other points I will like to make, but > a little>> > later...>> > > > parminder>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 > PM, Avri Doria wrote:>> > > > Hi,>> > > >>> > > > > Good names all.>> > > >>> > > > But,>> > > >>> > > > > What process was used?>> > > > Was there a public call > for nominations? Did I miss seeing>> > that?>> > > > Where are > their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they>> > > posted > on the web site anywhere?>> > > > Is there a reason for each of > these selections in terms of IGC>> > > expectations? Did I miss > seeing that? Are they posted somewhere?>> > > >>> > > > In > the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining>> > everything in>> > > > detail. Did I miss that?>> > > >>> > > > The > IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous>> > at best>> > > > > The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this>> > > selection>> > > risks that even further.>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > > avri>> > > >>> > > > On 1 Feb 2012, > at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>> > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> Dear All,>> > > >>>> > > >> The Names > that were submitted to the Coordinators by the>> > NomCom>> > > > are as follows:>> > > >> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda>> > > > >> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan>> > > >> • > Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada>> > > >> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - > Canadian & European (Spain)>> > > >> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North > American (Lives in Geneva)>> > > >> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - > Argentina>> > > >> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - > Pakistan>> > > >>>> > > >> However, these nominees were > advised that failure to send>> > their>> > > information in > via the required template would mean that their>> > > names would > not be sent.>> > > >>>> > > >> Kind Regards>> > > > >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro>> > > > > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>>> > > > > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>>>> > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>>> > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:>> > > >> Dear > All,>> > > >>>> > > >> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting > MAG candidates.>> > > >>>> > > >> In the interest of > transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that>> > > they had completed > selection of the MAG. We have yet to>> > receive the>> > > > information in the required format and an email was sent out>> > to > the>> > > potential candidates to submit their information in the > template>> > > shown within the email. Potential candidates were > advised that>> > > failing to have the information submitted in > required format could>> > > > mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been>> > > given>> > > 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be > sent.>> > > >>>> > > >> Submission of names were to be sent > on the 31st January 2012.>> > > >>>> > > >> -->> > > > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>> > > >>>> > > >> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> > > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> > > > >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > > >> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> -->> > > > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>> > > >>>> > > > >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> > > >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> > > >> Cell: +679 998 2851>> > >> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________>> > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> > > >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>>> > > >> To be removed from the > list, visit:>> > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>> > > > >>>> > > >> For all other list information and functions, > see:>> > > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> > > > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> > > > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/>> > > >>>> > > >> > Translate > this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>> > > >>>> > > > >>> > >>> > > -->> > > > ------------------------------------------------------>> > > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org>> > > > > >> > > > executive director, association for progressive communications>> > > > www.apc.org >> > > po > box 29755, melville 2109>> > > south africa>> > > tel/fax +27 > 11 726 1692 >> > > >> > >>> > >>> > > > ____________________________________________________________>> > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> > > >> > > To be removed from > the list, visit:>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>> > > >>> > > For all other list information and functions, see:>> > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/>> > >>> > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > -->> > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade>> > > FGV > Direito Rio>> > >>> > > Center for Technology and Society>> > > > Getulio Vargas Foundation>> > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil>> >>> > > -->> > ------------------------------------------------------>> > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> > > executive director, association for progressive communications>> > > www.apc.org > >> > po box 29755, melville 2109>> > south > africa>> > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> > >>> >>> >>> >>> > -->> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade>> > FGV Direito > Rio>> >>> > Center for Technology and Society>> > Getulio Vargas > Foundation>> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil>> >> -->> > ------------------------------------------------------>> anriette > esterhuysen anriette at apc.org>> executive director, association for > progressive communications>> www.apc.org>> po box 29755, melville 2109>> > south africa>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692>> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________>> You received > this message as a subscriber on the list:>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>> >> For all other list information > and functions, see:>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> To > edit your profile and to find the IGC's > charter, see:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>> >> Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta > Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851>> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________>> You received > this message as a subscriber on the list:>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>> >> For all other list information > and functions, see:>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> To > edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/>> >> Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Feb 4 05:13:00 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:13:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomcom reform In-Reply-To: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi On Feb 1, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people are disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom have made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their report once finalised will be published on the IGC website. One imagines it's not quite heartening for nomcom members to do a bunch of free labor for the community and then come in for immediate criticism of various kinds. If there are particular candidates who weren't selected due to unfair consideration that's one thing, although it'd be rather hard to get into a post hoc group discussion of it without risking treading on some sensitivities. Either way, the process points clearly are worth contemplating and nailing down as agree practice going forward. According to http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process NomCom Process Details: • Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that this wasn't done in this case, so the nomcom put in place for the WGIGF selections remained. I had to dig through old main to find the one message in which the members were listed: Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline Morris. However, in this cycle I saw this message from Jacquiline: From: Jacqueline Morris The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. Which puzzled me; what happened to the others, and who is Thomas, he wasn't listed in the prior grouping? Whenever possible, one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates. • At least 25 volunteers, i.e. 5 volunteers for each nomcom seat, are required for running the random process. • A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously. Again, I believe this was done for the noncom for WGIGF but not for this one. • All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. Should we do a revision, I would add to this that nomcom members who work directly with a candidate should recuse themselves from such discussions. I don't know whether that happened with the WGIGF selection process, when it should have. • Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made Done long ago for MAG but that text should have been unearthed and followed. • All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will their applications and other information Memory may be failing me, but I believe this was the practice in earlier MAG app rounds and could easily have been followed here. • The nomcom chair will put out a report after the selection giving a description of the internal processes used in the selection. Pending • Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. If so, then the WGIGF nomcom was gone and I don't recall how we ended up with a nomcom of apparently two people thereafter. However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions. Did that perhaps happen? • There is no limit on the number of nomcoms an individual may serve on. Unless we have a strong conviction that agreed processes were not followed and that in consequence this (mis)shaped the selection process in a manner that was prejudicial to certain applicants, I wouldn't see the purpose of doing an appeal process and then confusing UN NY in a couple weeks with a message asking them to disregard the names submitted, here's a new list (if that were the outcome). Probably would not build CS credibility, and might make us the particular focus of WGIGF discussions on the need to clarify procedures. But clearly we should take the opportunity to tweak the charter language and to ensure that future noncoms are fully compliant with each step that's been laid down… Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Feb 4 05:24:54 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:24:54 +0800 Subject: [governance] Nomcom reform In-Reply-To: References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> Message-ID: <4F2D0776.4020407@ciroap.org> On 04/02/12 18:13, William Drake wrote: > According to http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > > /NomCom Process Details: > > / > /• Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee > (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of > appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be > decided./ > / > / > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that this wasn't done in this > case, so the nomcom put in place for the WGIGF selections remained. I > had to dig through old main to find the one message in which the > members were listed: > > Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and > Jacquiline Morris. No, that was the previous nomcom. Reposting a message from the list to explain: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New nomcom begins work Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:40:42 +0800 From: Jeremy Malcolm Organization: Consumers International To: governance at lists.cpsr.org The recently-appointed IGC nominating committee is about to begin work on selecting IGC nominees for the IGF MAG. Since the panel was first announced, two of the reserves have stepped in to fill positions in which that the originally selected members couldn't (or couldn't confirm) being able to serve. A non-voting chair from the last nomcom has also volunteered to chair (see http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process). Many thanks to Jacqueline Morris for - however as her appointment is just a recommendation by the Coordinators, please let me know if there are any objections to it, before the nomcom commences work. Thus (subject to the above) the final composition of the nomcom is as follows: Jacqueline Morris (non-voting chair) Julián Casasbuenas G. Thomas Lowenhaupt Antonio Medina Gómez Shaila Mistry Carlos Watson We still do not have a date by which the MAG will be reconstituted, but in the meantime the new nomcom will begin to settle the appointment criteria and will post them to this list when they are done. They will also be calling for nominations of those wishing to serve on the MAG, so please stay tuned for that too. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. _www.consumersinternational.org _ _Twitter @ConsumersInt _ Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2309 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Feb 4 05:41:00 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 11:41:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomcom reform In-Reply-To: <4F2D0776.4020407@ciroap.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <4F2D0776.4020407@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy, I missed that one. Explains one piece of the puzzle... On Feb 4, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/02/12 18:13, William Drake wrote: >> >> According to http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process >> >> NomCom Process Details: >> >> • Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that this wasn't done in this case, so the nomcom put in place for the WGIGF selections remained. I had to dig through old main to find the one message in which the members were listed: >> >> Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline Morris. > > No, that was the previous nomcom. Reposting a message from the list to explain: > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: New nomcom begins work > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:40:42 +0800 > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Organization: Consumers International > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > The recently-appointed IGC nominating committee is about to begin work on selecting IGC nominees for the IGF MAG. > > Since the panel was first announced, two of the reserves have stepped in to fill positions in which that the originally selected members couldn't (or couldn't confirm) being able to serve. A non-voting chair from the last nomcom has also volunteered to chair (see http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process). Many thanks to Jacqueline Morris for - however as her appointment is just a recommendation by the Coordinators, please let me know if there are any objections to it, before the nomcom commences work. Thus (subject to the above) the final composition of the nomcom is as follows: > > Jacqueline Morris (non-voting chair) > Julián Casasbuenas G. > Thomas Lowenhaupt > Antonio Medina Gómez > Shaila Mistry > Carlos Watson > > We still do not have a date by which the MAG will be reconstituted, but in the meantime the new nomcom will begin to settle the appointment criteria and will post them to this list when they are done. They will also be calling for nominations of those wishing to serve on the MAG, so please stay tuned for that too. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. > www.consumersinternational.org > Twitter @ConsumersInt > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 4 10:56:11 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:56:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom reform In-Reply-To: References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> Message-ID: <8432BA9A-02B5-4BEF-8421-C93BB11337EA@acm.org> Hi Bill, I expect it is true of any of us who take on a public task as a volunteer that it is not heartening to have people criticize the work you did for free. Nonetheless, my experience has taught me that it is something most volunteers need to deal with. I expect that most people who do volunteer do it because there is something they think needs to be done and they think they can help do it, and that few of them do it for the kudos or praise of the of the non-volunteers. I think you may be mistaken over the reason this Nomcom was set up or when it was set-up. Specifically from > • From: Jeremy Malcolm > • To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > • Subject: [governance] New nomcom begins work > • Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:40:42 +0800 > The recently-appointed IGC nominating committee is about to begin work on selecting IGC nominees for the IGF MAG. avri On 4 Feb 2012, at 05:13, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Feb 1, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> >> I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people are disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom have made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their report once finalised will be published on the IGC website. > > One imagines it's not quite heartening for nomcom members to do a bunch of free labor for the community and then come in for immediate criticism of various kinds. If there are particular candidates who weren't selected due to unfair consideration that's one thing, although it'd be rather hard to get into a post hoc group discussion of it without risking treading on some sensitivities. Either way, the process points clearly are worth contemplating and nailing down as agree practice going forward. > > According to http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > > NomCom Process Details: > > • Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that this wasn't done in this case, so the nomcom put in place for the WGIGF selections remained. I had to dig through old main to find the one message in which the members were listed: > > Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline Morris. However, in this cycle I saw this message from Jacquiline: > > From: Jacqueline Morris > > The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. > > Which puzzled me; what happened to the others, and who is Thomas, he wasn't listed in the prior grouping? > > Whenever possible, one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates. > • At least 25 volunteers, i.e. 5 volunteers for each nomcom seat, are required for running the random process. > • A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously. > > Again, I believe this was done for the noncom for WGIGF but not for this one. > > • All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. > > Should we do a revision, I would add to this that nomcom members who work directly with a candidate should recuse themselves from such discussions. I don't know whether that happened with the WGIGF selection process, when it should have. > > • Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made > > Done long ago for MAG but that text should have been unearthed and followed. > > • All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will their applications and other information > > Memory may be failing me, but I believe this was the practice in earlier MAG app rounds and could easily have been followed here. > > • The nomcom chair will put out a report after the selection giving a description of the internal processes used in the selection. > > Pending > > • Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. > > If so, then the WGIGF nomcom was gone and I don't recall how we ended up with a nomcom of apparently two people thereafter. > > However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions. > > Did that perhaps happen? > > • There is no limit on the number of nomcoms an individual may serve on. > > Unless we have a strong conviction that agreed processes were not followed and that in consequence this (mis)shaped the selection process in a manner that was prejudicial to certain applicants, I wouldn't see the purpose of doing an appeal process and then confusing UN NY in a couple weeks with a message asking them to disregard the names submitted, here's a new list (if that were the outcome). Probably would not build CS credibility, and might make us the particular focus of WGIGF discussions on the need to clarify procedures. But clearly we should take the opportunity to tweak the charter language and to ensure that future noncoms are fully compliant with each step that's been laid down… > > Best, > > 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 devonrb at gmail.com Sat Feb 4 11:03:46 2012 From: devonrb at gmail.com (devonrb at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 16:03:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom reform In-Reply-To: <8432BA9A-02B5-4BEF-8421-C93BB11337EA@acm.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <8432BA9A-02B5-4BEF-8421-C93BB11337EA@acm.org> Message-ID: <1016541347-1328371427-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-954942390-@b14.c1.bise6.blackberry> So why not put all the procedures mentioned here in one document and then we can review and agree on a final framework going forward. Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:56:11 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Avri Doria Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom reform Hi Bill, I expect it is true of any of us who take on a public task as a volunteer that it is not heartening to have people criticize the work you did for free. Nonetheless, my experience has taught me that it is something most volunteers need to deal with. I expect that most people who do volunteer do it because there is something they think needs to be done and they think they can help do it, and that few of them do it for the kudos or praise of the of the non-volunteers. I think you may be mistaken over the reason this Nomcom was set up or when it was set-up. Specifically from > • From: Jeremy Malcolm > • To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > • Subject: [governance] New nomcom begins work > • Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:40:42 +0800 > The recently-appointed IGC nominating committee is about to begin work on selecting IGC nominees for the IGF MAG. avri On 4 Feb 2012, at 05:13, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Feb 1, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> >> I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people are disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom have made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their report once finalised will be published on the IGC website. > > One imagines it's not quite heartening for nomcom members to do a bunch of free labor for the community and then come in for immediate criticism of various kinds. If there are particular candidates who weren't selected due to unfair consideration that's one thing, although it'd be rather hard to get into a post hoc group discussion of it without risking treading on some sensitivities. Either way, the process points clearly are worth contemplating and nailing down as agree practice going forward. > > According to http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > > NomCom Process Details: > > • Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that this wasn't done in this case, so the nomcom put in place for the WGIGF selections remained. I had to dig through old main to find the one message in which the members were listed: > > Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline Morris. However, in this cycle I saw this message from Jacquiline: > > From: Jacqueline Morris > > The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. > > Which puzzled me; what happened to the others, and who is Thomas, he wasn't listed in the prior grouping? > > Whenever possible, one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates. > • At least 25 volunteers, i.e. 5 volunteers for each nomcom seat, are required for running the random process. > • A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously. > > Again, I believe this was done for the noncom for WGIGF but not for this one. > > • All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. > > Should we do a revision, I would add to this that nomcom members who work directly with a candidate should recuse themselves from such discussions. I don't know whether that happened with the WGIGF selection process, when it should have. > > • Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made > > Done long ago for MAG but that text should have been unearthed and followed. > > • All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will their applications and other information > > Memory may be failing me, but I believe this was the practice in earlier MAG app rounds and could easily have been followed here. > > • The nomcom chair will put out a report after the selection giving a description of the internal processes used in the selection. > > Pending > > • Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. > > If so, then the WGIGF nomcom was gone and I don't recall how we ended up with a nomcom of apparently two people thereafter. > > However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions. > > Did that perhaps happen? > > • There is no limit on the number of nomcoms an individual may serve on. > > Unless we have a strong conviction that agreed processes were not followed and that in consequence this (mis)shaped the selection process in a manner that was prejudicial to certain applicants, I wouldn't see the purpose of doing an appeal process and then confusing UN NY in a couple weeks with a message asking them to disregard the names submitted, here's a new list (if that were the outcome). Probably would not build CS credibility, and might make us the particular focus of WGIGF discussions on the need to clarify procedures. But clearly we should take the opportunity to tweak the charter language and to ensure that future noncoms are fully compliant with each step that's been laid down… > > Best, > > 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Feb 4 11:21:01 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 17:21:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom reform In-Reply-To: <8432BA9A-02B5-4BEF-8421-C93BB11337EA@acm.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <8432BA9A-02B5-4BEF-8421-C93BB11337EA@acm.org> Message-ID: <1A83BFAE-B79B-48C0-A1B4-090845DA0D68@uzh.ch> On Feb 4, 2012, at 4:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > I think you may be mistaken over the reason this Nomcom was set up or when it was set-up. > Specifically from Right, as I replied to Jeremy previously, I missed that message (apparently was not alone in this). So assuming the set-up process was per the charter, the outstanding questions would pertain to just the subsequent conduct, e.g. >> >> >> • All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. >> >> Should we do a revision, I would add to this that nomcom members who work directly with a candidate should recuse themselves from such discussions. I don't know whether that happened with the WGIGF selection process, when it should have. >> >> • Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made >> >> Done long ago for MAG but that text should have been unearthed and followed. >> >> • All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will their applications and other information >> >> Memory may be failing me, but I believe this was the practice in earlier MAG app rounds and could easily have been followed here. >> >> • The nomcom chair will put out a report after the selection giving a description of the internal processes used in the selection. The Chair's pending report could fill in the gaps this time and then going forward we could agree on which bits are supposed to happen prior to the announcement of selections. BD -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 12:02:19 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:02:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Nomcom reform Message-ID: <1328374939.72189.yint-ygo-j2me@web161006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> translate google ------------------------------ On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 3:13 PM PKT William Drake wrote: >Hi > >On Feb 1, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> >> I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people are disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom have made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their report once finalised will be published on the IGC website. > >One imagines it's not quite heartening for nomcom members to do a bunch of free labor for the community and then come in for immediate criticism of various kinds. If there are particular candidates who weren't selected due to unfair consideration that's one thing, although it'd be rather hard to get into a post hoc group discussion of it without risking treading on some sensitivities. Either way, the process points clearly are worth contemplating and nailing down as agree practice going forward. > >According to http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process > >NomCom Process Details: > > • Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that this wasn't done in this case, so the nomcom put in place for the WGIGF selections remained. I had to dig through old main to find the one message in which the members were listed: > >Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline Morris. However, in this cycle I saw this message from Jacquiline: > >From: Jacqueline Morris > >The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. > >Which puzzled me; what happened to the others, and who is Thomas, he wasn't listed in the prior grouping? > >Whenever possible, one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates. > • At least 25 volunteers, i.e. 5 volunteers for each nomcom seat, are required for running the random process. > • A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously. > >Again, I believe this was done for the noncom for WGIGF but not for this one. > > • All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. > >Should we do a revision, I would add to this that nomcom members who work directly with a candidate should recuse themselves from such discussions. I don't know whether that happened with the WGIGF selection process, when it should have. > > • Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made > >Done long ago for MAG but that text should have been unearthed and followed. > > • All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will their applications and other information > >Memory may be failing me, but I believe this was the practice in earlier MAG app rounds and could easily have been followed here. > > • The nomcom chair will put out a report after the selection giving a description of the internal processes used in the selection. > >Pending > > • Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. > >If so, then the WGIGF nomcom was gone and I don't recall how we ended up with a nomcom of apparently two people thereafter. > >However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions. > >Did that perhaps happen? > > • There is no limit on the number of nomcoms an individual may serve on. > >Unless we have a strong conviction that agreed processes were not followed and that in consequence this (mis)shaped the selection process in a manner that was prejudicial to certain applicants, I wouldn't see the purpose of doing an appeal process and then confusing UN NY in a couple weeks with a message asking them to disregard the names submitted, here's a new list (if that were the outcome). Probably would not build CS credibility, and might make us the particular focus of WGIGF discussions on the need to clarify procedures. But clearly we should take the opportunity to tweak the charter language and to ensure that future noncoms are fully compliant with each step that's been laid down… > >Best, > >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 avri at acm.org Sat Feb 4 12:04:38 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 12:04:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom reform In-Reply-To: <1016541347-1328371427-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-954942390-@b14.c1.bise6.blackberry> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <8432BA9A-02B5-4BEF-8421-C93BB11337EA@acm.org> <1016541347-1328371427-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-954942390-@b14.c1.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <4C2B5CAA-7D96-4C86-AE99-FC7628915BE2@acm.org> Hi, Ture they could be fused into one document instead of the two they are currently in. Actually one of them is included by reference in the other. Not sure what that would achieve, since both are online: http://igcaucus.org/charter http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process And just in case anyone thinks these have never been modified: I.e we have an amendment process, which we have used. It involves groups of members > This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC. The membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter. This has happened before. BTW, I should note that since I only signed the membership pledge that is a part of the elections process in the last election, but did not actually vote for anyone, since I was objecting to the lack of a non of the above option, I have been judged a non-member by a previous co-coordinator. I would still argue that any amendments should be done according to the process defined in the charter. Of course this means that by that judgement I am also no longer a member of the non-appeals team since I am no longer a member. Shows how important voting is and how costly the decision to protest a ballot can be. HMMM, maybe I should start an amendment process on what it means to vote (i.e. is it participation in the process that includes signing the yearly membership pledge or is it actually picking one of the individuals listed?) and on whether the inclusion of 'none of the above' is mandatory on ballot. Of course I would not count as one of the 10 members required by the amendment process and would not be able to vote on it. Unless of course the coordinator decide my petition to them regarding membership is resolved in my favor. Of course we could also be putting our time into position related to the upcoming IGC consultation. avri On 4 Feb 2012, at 11:03, devonrb at gmail.com wrote: > So why not put all the procedures mentioned here in one document and then we can review and agree on a final framework going forward. > Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria > Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:56:11 > To: > Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Avri Doria > Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom reform > > Hi Bill, > > I expect it is true of any of us who take on a public task as a volunteer that it is not heartening to have people criticize the work you did for free. Nonetheless, my experience has taught me that it is something most volunteers need to deal with. I expect that most people who do volunteer do it because there is something they think needs to be done and they think they can help do it, and that few of them do it for the kudos or praise of the of the non-volunteers. > > I think you may be mistaken over the reason this Nomcom was set up or when it was set-up. > Specifically from > >> • From: Jeremy Malcolm >> • To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> • Subject: [governance] New nomcom begins work >> • Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:40:42 +0800 > > >> The recently-appointed IGC nominating committee is about to begin work on selecting IGC nominees for the IGF MAG. > > > avri > > On 4 Feb 2012, at 05:13, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Feb 1, 2012, at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> >>> I thank the NomCom for their work and am sure that it was not an easy process. I am mindful that there were numerous applications and people are disappointed as we all have our preferences etc. However, the NomCom have made their decision as you can see from their email below. Their report once finalised will be published on the IGC website. >> >> One imagines it's not quite heartening for nomcom members to do a bunch of free labor for the community and then come in for immediate criticism of various kinds. If there are particular candidates who weren't selected due to unfair consideration that's one thing, although it'd be rather hard to get into a post hoc group discussion of it without risking treading on some sensitivities. Either way, the process points clearly are worth contemplating and nailing down as agree practice going forward. >> >> According to http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process >> >> NomCom Process Details: >> >> • Whenever possible a call for volunteers for a nominating committee (nomcom) will be posted 2 months before the scheduled selection of appeals team or selection of any other list of nominees needs to be decided. >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that this wasn't done in this case, so the nomcom put in place for the WGIGF selections remained. I had to dig through old main to find the one message in which the members were listed: >> >> Ian Peter, Qusai Al-Shatti, Gurumurthy K, Hempal Shrestha, and Jacquiline Morris. However, in this cycle I saw this message from Jacquiline: >> >> From: Jacqueline Morris >> >> The NomCom that created this list consisted of Thomas and myself. >> >> Which puzzled me; what happened to the others, and who is Thomas, he wasn't listed in the prior grouping? >> >> Whenever possible, one month will be used to constitute the nomcom and determine the criteria for the selections they are to make, and one month will be used to discuss and decide on candidates. >> • At least 25 volunteers, i.e. 5 volunteers for each nomcom seat, are required for running the random process. >> • A non voting chair will be appointed by the coordinators for each nomcom with the advice of the IGC membership. In order to serve as a chair, it is recommended that a person has served in at least one nomcom previously. >> >> Again, I believe this was done for the noncom for WGIGF but not for this one. >> >> • All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. >> >> Should we do a revision, I would add to this that nomcom members who work directly with a candidate should recuse themselves from such discussions. I don't know whether that happened with the WGIGF selection process, when it should have. >> >> • Criteria used by nomcom will be made public and will be reviewed by the caucus whenever possible before decisions are made >> >> Done long ago for MAG but that text should have been unearthed and followed. >> >> • All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will their applications and other information >> >> Memory may be failing me, but I believe this was the practice in earlier MAG app rounds and could easily have been followed here. >> >> • The nomcom chair will put out a report after the selection giving a description of the internal processes used in the selection. >> >> Pending >> >> • Each nomcom will be selected for a specific decision and will be disbanded after the decision is made. >> >> If so, then the WGIGF nomcom was gone and I don't recall how we ended up with a nomcom of apparently two people thereafter. >> >> However, in special cases where several different nominating committees would need to be completed in a shortened time frame that did not allow for multiple nominating committees, the co-coordinators may jointly request one nominating committee to fill several functions. >> >> Did that perhaps happen? >> >> • There is no limit on the number of nomcoms an individual may serve on. >> >> Unless we have a strong conviction that agreed processes were not followed and that in consequence this (mis)shaped the selection process in a manner that was prejudicial to certain applicants, I wouldn't see the purpose of doing an appeal process and then confusing UN NY in a couple weeks with a message asking them to disregard the names submitted, here's a new list (if that were the outcome). Probably would not build CS credibility, and might make us the particular focus of WGIGF discussions on the need to clarify procedures. But clearly we should take the opportunity to tweak the charter language and to ensure that future noncoms are fully compliant with each step that's been laid down… >> >> Best, >> >> Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 4 12:33:04 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:33:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks for this Marilla but I'm a bit unsure as to the status of what you have quoted below and what role if any the IGC can or should play in this. As i was going through the points and thinking of responses/positions a few things jumped out at me... the sheer complexity of the issues that are being addressed. While many of them are part of the on-going discourse in a variety of academic disciplines and within the broader CS community to a considerable degree the Internet "changes everything" :) that is, the Internet/ICTs changes the nature and impact of a lot of traditional governance issues/approaches/strategies. I don't know that those have been very well-worked out partly because ICTs are such a work in progress (mGov anyone?) but issues like "transparency", and organization and governance of a CS "caucus" need very much to be thought through in our current if evolving environment. the significane of what is being discussed and to a degree "decided" upon here. To some extent (it's hard to know the degree) these discussions/developments around IG and the IGF are providing a model for broader developments in governance in an Internet era. This gives discussions on these issues a significance rather beyond the immediate planning/staging of the IGC or IGF. What this tells me, and particularly from a CS perspective is that we as CS in the context of the IGC need to step back a bit and enter into a more deliberate process of reflection and positon development on these very important issues. I'm wondering if funds couldn't be found to stage an online/offline event to discuss these issues and to help to formulate a CS position on these. (Note that the OECD counterpart to the IGC has now obtained limited but useful funding from Soros/OSI. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:42 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] Congratulations to the tentative list of nominees. Thanks to NomCom for performing this important task and thanks in advance for the report they are producing. As you know, one of the topics that are being discussed in the WG on IGF improvements is precisely the process for nominating MAG members and the role of MAG. MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a strengthened IGF and the next group of selected MAG members will be invited to find concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the suggestions for improvement that will come out of the WG. That is to say that, in my view, the next group of MAG members will be appointed in a crucial moment. It is very important that they are supported by the community and that they are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The selection process is important on this regard, as it puts in place an important cornerstone. This is why this process needs to be documented and that the parameters for selection need to be made clear. The WG has been discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and also some of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a compilation (rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, not only as a contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of these topics could be covered in their report, it would be great, as we would be walking the talk), but also for discussion. From this thread I am sure that this topic is a concern of the community, and it would be great to have feedback about what is being discussed in the WG about it. The report will probably be structured with broad agreements as "headlines", further detailed on more specific proposals. Marília B.II – MAG Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG meetings transparent Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings - The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its proceedings available in the form of a live text streaming. This verbatim record is available on the IGF Web site. This proceeding is recommended for future meetings in order to enhance the openness and transparency of its work. - Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year, should be preserved, with a three-year limit to each member’s term in order to provide opportunities to all interested participants and to ensure fair representation Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a transparent and documented fashion Broad agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each stakeholder group - In light of transparency, stakeholder groups should publicise their selection process and should identify the process that works best for their own culture and methods of engagement - Selection of any stakeholder group may not be confined to be mediated through any one particular body. - The selection would be based on proposed candidate lists made by the three non-governmental stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups are encouraged to nominate a sufficiently large slate of candidates to provide some flexibility in selection of MAG members and are asked to ensure appropriate gender balance - One possibility mentioned by the MAG group itself last November: - A form of 'triage' that would be used to ensure appropriate geographical balance among MAG members. This 'triage' could be carried out by a trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, perhaps including some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted group would work in active consultation with the respective stakeholder groups. The recommendation would then be submitted to the Secretary-General for approval. One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be submitted to the Secretary-General should be published on the IGF website. - Another selection process was mentioned capturing the essence of the NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection committee" to avoid confusion with existing systems in other organizations. - The selection Committee members, appointed by the IGF Chair, should be drawn fairly from representatives of stakeholders across the different regions and constituencies. Preferably, the Selection Committee would include experts with wide-ranging knowledge of Internet governance, previous experience of program preparation and strong links to various stakeholder groups. This Selection Committee would select candidates for the MAG ensuring balanced representation of geographical distribution, gender and the wide range of stakeholders. The final selection of candidates should be submitted to the UN Secretary-General for final approval. Open and transparent selection process and working process Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of Reference. Requirements for MAG members: Potential stakeholder representatives should represent groups’ or constituencies’ interest and not private interests. Selected members should present: - Proven ability to work as a team member - Active participation in the IGF process - Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if possible, to other stakeholder groups - Experience and expertise in Internet governance issues Responsibilities of MAG members: - Attend three meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the yearly global meeting; - Participate in inter-sessional work; - Make outreach to wider community, including national and regional IGF type initiatives and bring other networks into the MAG; - Bring in comments from the community; - Explain recommendations to the community. - Willingness to commit to work and follow through Responsibilities of the MAG as a whole: - guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of service, rotations, performance criteria such as removal/replacement of MAG members that do not participate) - Develop the detailed programme including the identification of issues of concern; - Selecting workshops and other meetings; - Defining how best to plan and organize the meetings; - Organizing main sessions and where necessary participate in dedicated thematic working groups; - Establishing linkages between workshops and main sessions; - Facilitating the organization of workshops; - Coordinating panels and supporting panellists, moderators and speakers at the annual meeting; - Liaising with their respective communities; -Publishing reports. - Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction with secretariat Miscellaneous: - Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic committee. - Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF and in the context of IGF improvements and the recommendations for IGF improvements. - Consider relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and responsibilities - Consider the role of the MAG in context of IGF no longer being just a single event but rather having evolved into a process. - Consider mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient. - Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator and listener of what happens in consultations, important input into the process On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear Parminder and all On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote: > Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list. Yes.. congrats to all. > > However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and > support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions below. Yes, so do I. > Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its processes > must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe > process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of > openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort > etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. Things like: > we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to > nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and perhaps the > list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS > entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all > developments, ...... > > For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the > IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees > for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the > past). Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC nomcom as we think the IGC selection is an important one. We are not sure that the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any acknowledgement. One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we are happy to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG' member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does make the MAG. The other people on our list were (as Bill posted). Carlos Afonso (Brazil) Magaly Pazello (Brazil) Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan) Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa) David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD) We will send these directly to the secretariat as well. Anriette Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the > final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. And in the > civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very live and > dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At times, > like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the single > point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to live up > to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am really not > sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected. > > It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements we have been > seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach effort, broad > basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we need to > practise what we preach. > > Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning and use > of having candidates submit their information in the 'required' format > after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required information > supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of nominees? > > There a few other points I will like to make, but a little later... > parminder > > > > On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Good names all. >> >> But, >> >> What process was used? >> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that? >> Where are their statements? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted on the web site anywhere? >> Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC expectations? Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere? >> >> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in detail. Did I miss that? >> >> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best >> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks that even further. >> >> >> avri >> >> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as follows: >>> • Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) - Uganda >>> • Izumi AIZU (Mr) - Japan >>> • Michael Gurstein (Mr) - Canada >>> • Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain) >>> • Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva) >>> • Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina >>> • Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) - Pakistan >>> >>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their information in via the required template would mean that their names would not be sent. >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates. >>> >>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information in the required format and an email was sent out to the potential candidates to submit their information in the template shown within the email. Potential candidates were advised that failing to have the information submitted in required format could mean that their names would not be put forward. They have been given 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent. >>> >>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012. >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Feb 4 19:17:34 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 08:17:34 +0800 Subject: [governance] Nomcom reform In-Reply-To: <4C2B5CAA-7D96-4C86-AE99-FC7628915BE2@acm.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <8432BA9A-02B5-4BEF-8421-C93BB11337EA@acm.org> <1016541347-1328371427-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-954942390-@b14.c1.bise6.blackberry> <4C2B5CAA-7D96-4C86-AE99-FC7628915BE2@acm.org> Message-ID: <62EDBCBB-A146-44F6-95F7-1E8CA358969D@ciroap.org> On 05/02/2012, at 1:04 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > BTW, I should note that since I only signed the membership pledge that is a part of the elections process in the last election, but did not actually vote for anyone, since I was objecting to the lack of a non of the above option, I have been judged a non-member by a previous co-coordinator. I would still argue that any amendments should be done according to the process defined in the charter. > > Of course this means that by that judgement I am also no longer a member of the non-appeals team since I am no longer a member. Why should it mean that? You still have a voter account, hence are still a member for all purposes other than voting on charter amendments. The Charter only says that "everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter", it doesn't say that they are not members for other purposes. But agreed that we need to work on the charter, anyway. There is a group of 8 (including you) who have joined a mailing list to put together some proposed amendments to the charter, and anyone else can join that list too: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/charter We should get started now, I guess. I'll put together some suggestions and post them there within the next 48 hours. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 The global voice for consumers: www.consumersinternational.org Connect with CI: Twitter @ConsumersInt | http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Help CI stay in touch: please also add ConsumersInternational at sut1.co.uk to your safe sender list 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 Sat Feb 4 19:22:28 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 08:22:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87E8122C-D445-4E58-9D28-A75B8F40E907@ciroap.org> On 05/02/2012, at 1:33 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > What this tells me, and particularly from a CS perspective is that we as CS in the context of the IGC need to step back a bit and enter into a more deliberate process of reflection and positon development on these very important issues. > > I'm wondering if funds couldn't be found to stage an online/offline event to discuss these issues and to help to formulate a CS position on these. (Note that the OECD counterpart to the IGC has now obtained limited but useful funding from Soros/OSI. When I stepped down I promised to look into funding options for the IGC, and I approached two funders about it, both of whom responded that they were not interested in receiving a funding proposal from the IGC at present. This doesn't mean we couldn't try again if we had a particular activity to fund, such as this online/offline event of which you speak. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 The global voice for consumers: www.consumersinternational.org Connect with CI: Twitter @ConsumersInt | http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Help CI stay in touch: please also add ConsumersInternational at sut1.co.uk to your safe sender list 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Feb 4 20:30:56 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 17:30:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Nomcom reform Message-ID: <1328405456.897.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Jeremy, May I ask that, why the option of ballot to opt non-of-above feature require modification to the charter? Charter does not stop or speak against. For instance; if any of the voter member asked this option, you could add in the eBallot, by using Check Box instead of Radio Buttons and Voter could submit without selecting any of the listed candidate. Now it is your decision, or appeal team consideration that do you discard this ballot casting or count as against listed candidate. As I know the Ballot Design is not included in the Charter. However, if you do not consider member's request, charter amendment could support members to convince the coordinator. Thanks Imran ------------------------------On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 5:17 AM PKT Jeremy Malcolm wrote:>On 05/02/2012, at 1:04 AM, Avri Doria wrote:>>> BTW, I should note that since I only signed the membership pledge that is a part of the elections process in the last election, but did not actually vote for anyone, since I was objecting to the lack of a non of the above option, I have been judged a non-member by a previous co-coordinator. I would still argue that any amendments should be done according to the process defined in the charter.>> >> Of course this means that by that judgement I am also no longer a member of the non-appeals team since I am no longer a member.>>Why should it mean that? You still have a voter account, hence are still a member for all purposes other than voting on charter amendments. The Charter only says that "everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter", it doesn't say that they are not members for other purposes.>>But agreed that we need to work on the charter, anyway. There is a group of 8 (including you) who have joined a mailing list to put together some proposed amendments to the charter, and anyone else can join that list too:>>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/charter>>We should get started now, I guess. I'll put together some suggestions and post them there within the next 48 hours.>>-- >Dr Jeremy Malcolm>Project Coordinator>Consumers International>Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East>Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia>Tel: +60 3 7726 1599>>The global voice for consumers: www.consumersinternational.org>Connect with CI: Twitter @ConsumersInt | http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>Help CI stay in touch: please also add ConsumersInternational at sut1.co.uk to your safe sender list>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 avri at acm.org Sat Feb 4 21:20:12 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 21:20:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Membership criteria was Re: [] Nomcom reform In-Reply-To: <62EDBCBB-A146-44F6-95F7-1E8CA358969D@ciroap.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <8432BA9A-02B5-4BEF-8421-C93BB11337EA@acm.org> <1016541347-1328371427-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-954942390-@b14.c1.bise6.blackberry> <4C2B5CAA-7D96-4C86-AE99-FC7628915BE2@acm.org> <62EDBCBB-A146-44F6-95F7-1E8CA358969D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1A5F5D67-E6D4-43C8-8336-D2ECB019A8C8@acm.org> On 4 Feb 2012, at 19:17, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> BTW, I should note that since I only signed the membership pledge that is a part of the elections process in the last election, but did not actually vote for anyone, since I was objecting to the lack of a non of the above option, I have been judged a non-member by a previous co-coordinator. I would still argue that any amendments should be done according to the process defined in the charter. >> >> Of course this means that by that judgement I am also no longer a member of the non-appeals team since I am no longer a member. > > Why should it mean that? You still have a voter account, hence are still a member for all purposes other than voting on charter amendments. The Charter only says that "everyone who voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending the charter", it doesn't say that they are not members for other purposes. So by that reasoning there is: - Members qualified to amend the charter by virtue of having voted - Members qualified for roles by virtue of "who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. " - List non-members by virtue of NOT "who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. " If that is the case, then the membership page should probably reflect those 3 categories as opposed to the two categories it does now. One thing that would lead to needing amendment to avoid confusion would be: > 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. > Since this does not seem to allow for two types of members. It could be amended simply just with: All members are equal and have the same rights and duties unless specified otherwise in this Charter. Or There is just one type of membership so the prevailing condition is that one that requires having voted. This seems to be reflected in the two position membership lists currently posted on the web site. This one can be upheld without amending the charter and seems to be reflected in current practice. 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 10:01:36 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:01:36 -0200 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 3:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> ** >> >> Thanks for this Marilla but I'm a bit unsure as to the status of what >> you have quoted below and what role if any the IGC can or should play in >> this. >> >> Hi Mike, this is a summary of the broad agreements that IGF WG > participants reached regarding MAG, based on proposals that have been > advanced by the WG members themselves and also by a larger group of > interested people (there was an open consultation some time ago, between > the first and the second meetings of the WG). The text of the report of the > WG will be drafted during the next meeting, in February. It means that it > is not carved in stone yet, and that adjustments can be made. This is why I > believe it would be so important to receive feedback as soon as possible. > > I agree with you when you mention the potential of IG/IGF arrangements to > influence and to help shaping governance in a broader sense, and I agree > that we should promote a more organized, constant and consistent debate > about these issues. The report from the WG needs to be finalized in May, so > I am not sure if it is realistic to try to find funding to carry out an > event with the specific purpose of discussing improvements with the report > in mind. Of course, we should use online channels and take advantage of the > opportunities we have to meet face to face, such as open consultations, to > discuss and improve the suggestions that are currently on the table. > > Nevertheless, regardless of the WG, there are ongoing debates that CS > should be involved (and maybe could even proactively push forward) such as > the one about IG principles. Wolfgang wrote to the list a couple of times > about the importance of a CS initiative to look into current proposals of > regulatory principles, and try to find points of coherence, with view to an > harmonization. I would strongly support the pursuit of this goal. > > Best, > Marília > >> >> >> -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Feb 5 10:20:30 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 10:20:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection Process, Funding & General comments... In-Reply-To: <87E8122C-D445-4E58-9D28-A75B8F40E907@ciroap.org> References: <87E8122C-D445-4E58-9D28-A75B8F40E907@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <7F4C1E11-1196-4814-BF3B-FC1496220F39@privaterra.org> Dear Nomcom, It is an honour to have been shortlisted as one of the possible IGF candidates to the MAG. Thank you! Having served on the NOMCON in the past, I appreciate the effort and time you put into your work. Jeremy & Michael, There are a variety of different approaches one can take to seek funding to enhance CS participation at the IGF. One approach is to engage donors to fund the IGC caucus directly the other is to have the donors fund NGOs that are active in IG issues. Until the caucus is formally established as a separate entity, the only viable option - for now - is to work with existing NGOs. Even if the IC were established, we'd also need to find volunteers willing and able to deal with the administrative requirements . While finding funds isn't easy, it is possible. It just requires one to explore options and from there be persistent about it. I say this from personal experience as over the last two years I was able to identify key govts governments, foundations and yes - private sector companies - who were willing and able to fund free expression and human rights activists to attend the Asia Regional IGF, the annual IGF in 2010 and 2011. As I mentioned in my MAG candidate statement, I will try my best to coordinate efforts with other stakeholders to help identify and seek funding to help build the CS capacity and participation at the upcoming IGFs. I commit to do so regardless weather I get appointed to the MAG or not. It not an easy task, but one i'll try to help with best I can.. regards Robert On 2012-02-04, at 7:22 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 05/02/2012, at 1:33 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> What this tells me, and particularly from a CS perspective is that we as CS in the context of the IGC need to step back a bit and enter into a more deliberate process of reflection and positon development on these very important issues. >> >> I'm wondering if funds couldn't be found to stage an online/offline event to discuss these issues and to help to formulate a CS position on these. (Note that the OECD counterpart to the IGC has now obtained limited but useful funding from Soros/OSI. > > When I stepped down I promised to look into funding options for the IGC, and I approached two funders about it, both of whom responded that they were not interested in receiving a funding proposal from the IGC at present. This doesn't mean we couldn't try again if we had a particular activity to fund, such as this online/offline event of which you speak. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 5 11:57:58 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:27:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Nomcom reform In-Reply-To: <4C2B5CAA-7D96-4C86-AE99-FC7628915BE2@acm.org> References: <1FE36898-CAA8-4621-83A2-5546F99D777A@acm.org> <8432BA9A-02B5-4BEF-8421-C93BB11337EA@acm.org> <1016541347-1328371427-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-954942390-@b14.c1.bise6.blackberry> <4C2B5CAA-7D96-4C86-AE99-FC7628915BE2@acm.org> Message-ID: <4F2EB516.7030602@itforchange.net> Dear Coordinators/ All I propose that we do at least a part of this discussion on the issues that some may have with the process adopted by the present nomcom on a closed IGC members only list. And for this purpose, of course, I propose that such a list be created. While most of our discussion should indeed take place here in the open, and this includes discussions regarding nomcom reforms, it will be useful to take some of the discussion to a closed members list. We may not want to be too deeply questioning the legitimacy of our, I mean IGC's, own position and legitimacy in the open, and we know that such questions do open up as a part of such discussions. One also feels that IGC members will be able to give better attention to such organisational issues without the general noise of the ongoing discussions of the IGC list. Also, maybe, members will also feel more responsible to contribute to resolution of organisational matters in such a closed list. (I feel that there is a considerably reduced level of engagement of IGC members, at least in terms of a sustained purposeful engagement, with organisational as well as advocacy issues. It is possible that a pulling together of the members into a closed group for some core functions will enlist greater sense of responsiblity and thus engagement. But this is only a conjecture.) Such a list has other uses as well, for focussed and purposeful advocacy, especially when it involves tactical considerations. I wrote a report of the last meeting of WG on improvements to the IGF summing up my assessment of where things stand at present, the stances of the key actors, the important issues and battle-lines, my expectations from the final meeting later this month, and my assessment of what strategies civil society should adopt. I had meant to post this report to the IGC list but then thought the better of it. I would be much more comfortable submitting it to a closed members only list because the work of the WG is poised at a delicate point, and so, well, you understand.... 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sun Feb 5 12:09:55 2012 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 18:09:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] The standards about the RPKI are out Message-ID: <20120205170955.GA12463@sources.org> The 14 (!) RFC about the RPKI security system (signing of routing announcements to avoid new PakistanTelecom vs. YouTube cases) have been issued: RFC 6480 to 6494. There have been unfortunately very few discussions on the RPKI in the various governance meetings, probably because it is a practical issue. A good summary and introduction to the possible political consequences of the RPKI is still . -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 5 12:50:15 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 09:50:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection Process, Funding & General comments... In-Reply-To: <7F4C1E11-1196-4814-BF3B-FC1496220F39@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <66932CF52B354D0ABA396294644A1534@UserVAIO> Robert, There are, as you know, a number of separate issues involved in IGC funding of which funding for IGF participation is only one and perhaps not even the most pressing. To my mind funding for participation in the MAG is of more direct concern since in that instance where policy decisions concerning the IGF are presumably being made one would not want individual participation to be dependent on access to outside funding with all that that might or might not entail. My issue of funding was concerned with how to make the IGC more effective in its role including broadening the base of participation and particularly around supporting the IGC in working through an effective and appropriate response to the IGF operating principles and practices which Marilla shared with us. I see those principles as a very significant inflection point, with the IGF moving towards a much higher degree of formalization in the mode of its operation and I personally would want for a number of reasons that that formalization be as well thought through and as reflective of CS principles and aspirations as possible. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 7:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] MAG Selection Process, Funding & General comments... Dear Nomcom, It is an honour to have been shortlisted as one of the possible IGF candidates to the MAG. Thank you! Having served on the NOMCON in the past, I appreciate the effort and time you put into your work. Jeremy & Michael, There are a variety of different approaches one can take to seek funding to enhance CS participation at the IGF. One approach is to engage donors to fund the IGC caucus directly the other is to have the donors fund NGOs that are active in IG issues. Until the caucus is formally established as a separate entity, the only viable option - for now - is to work with existing NGOs. Even if the IC were established, we'd also need to find volunteers willing and able to deal with the administrative requirements . While finding funds isn't easy, it is possible. It just requires one to explore options and from there be persistent about it. I say this from personal experience as over the last two years I was able to identify key govts governments, foundations and yes - private sector companies - who were willing and able to fund free expression and human rights activists to attend the Asia Regional IGF, the annual IGF in 2010 and 2011. As I mentioned in my MAG candidate statement, I will try my best to coordinate efforts with other stakeholders to help identify and seek funding to help build the CS capacity and participation at the upcoming IGFs. I commit to do so regardless weather I get appointed to the MAG or not. It not an easy task, but one i'll try to help with best I can.. regards Robert On 2012-02-04, at 7:22 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 05/02/2012, at 1:33 AM, michael gurstein wrote: What this tells me, and particularly from a CS perspective is that we as CS in the context of the IGC need to step back a bit and enter into a more deliberate process of reflection and positon development on these very important issues. I'm wondering if funds couldn't be found to stage an online/offline event to discuss these issues and to help to formulate a CS position on these. (Note that the OECD counterpart to the IGC has now obtained limited but useful funding from Soros/OSI. When I stepped down I promised to look into funding options for the IGC, and I approached two funders about it, both of whom responded that they were not interested in receiving a funding proposal from the IGC at present. This doesn't mean we couldn't try again if we had a particular activity to fund, such as this online/offline event of which you speak. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 5 13:45:09 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:45:09 +1300 Subject: [governance] Draft Evaluation for the purposes of creating a Strategic Coordination Plan [Call for feedback] Message-ID: Dear All, We are *pleased* that there have been numerous suggestions for improvement from seeking funding, NomCom reforms, reviewing the Charter, creation of mailing lists, consolidation of rules and procedures. The Coordinators met on the 30th January, 2012 and one of the Agenda Item was the creation of a modest Strategic Development Plan or a Coordination to evaluate our functionality which specifically is the level of alignment to our Charter etc. The Vision, Mission and Objectives are imported from the Charter although in text below, I have numbered them to make it easy for people to comment etc. We can also conduct discussions wiki style on the website. We also noted that the various working groups on the IGC list are inactive based on the IGC Nairobi Face to Face meeting. These include the following:- 1. IGC Outreach Working Group; 2. IGC Strategy Working Group; 3. IGC Work Plan Working Group; 4. IGC Charter Review Working Group; 5. IGC Working Group for CSTD issues. We have the option of reviving these groups. We also have the option of creating new groups but it will need volunteers to be actively involved to drive these Groups. The excellent work that was developed through this list and headed by Norbert Bollow in terms of Internet Governance Mapping has paved a pathway to enable us to strategically discuss and assess our levels of engagement and how we are meeting Charter objectives. As such, kindly find the Charter vision, mission and objectives listed for your view. [This is available from Source: http://www.igcaucus.org/charter ] Jeremy Malcolm has built an etherpad into our website to enable us to put thoughts and craft something together. For now, let us know what you think. *IGC Strategic Coordination Plan* *VISION:* The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all. *MISSION:* 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. *Evaluation* - means to evaluate current work done by the IGC through its various sub groups etc *No.* *Objectives* Evaluation Comments 1 Inform civil society and other progressive groups/actors on significant developments impacting on Internet governance policies. 2 Provide a context for open on line and, wherever and whenever possible, face-to-face debate on the range of issues related to Internet governance policies from a civil society perspective. 3 Develop an on-going and outcome oriented structure. Create informal relationships with various CS groups and individuals with a direct interest in Internet governance policies, including those involved in human rights, ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security. 4a Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a stake in some aspect of Internet governance polices. 4b Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies with similar interests, generally or on specific issues, at various forums involved with Internet governance policies. 5 For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes, develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such positions. 6 Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner that is informed by the stated vision of the IGC -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 5 13:57:46 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:57:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] The standards about the RPKI are out In-Reply-To: <20120205170955.GA12463@sources.org> References: <20120205170955.GA12463@sources.org> Message-ID: <60C4DDEA-CAA2-420F-888F-F82631D36CA9@acm.org> Hi, Good article, nice to be reminded to read it. One of the critical points in that discussion is the Sandra Murphy quote: > > the
> ability 
> of
> a 
> relying
> party 
> to 
> choose 
> a 
> trust 
> anchor 
> is 
> a 
> big
> get‐out‐of‐jail‐free
> > card 
> for 
> those 
> who 
> are 
> allergic 
> to 
> the
> idea 
> of 
> one 
> root. 
> NOT 
> that 
> I'm
> > recommending
> using 
> that 
> card. and the authors' contention > As 
> long
> as 
> it 
> is
> unclear 
> how
> RPKI 
> achieves 
> compatibility 
> among
> multiple 
> roots,
> it 
> is 
> disingenuous 
> to
> pretend 
> that 
> RPKI 
> allows 
> ISPs 
> a 
> free choice 
> of 
> trust 
> anchors 
> – 
> just 
> as 
> it 
> is 
> disingenuous 
> to
> pretend
> that 
> anyone 
> who 
> wants 
> to 
> create 
> an 
> alternate 
> DNS
> root 
> can 
> easily 
> do 
> so. Today we find more efforts in the creation of various forms of circumvention. I think this has the folliwng effects: - serves as a warning for those who look to impose strictly hierarchical regimes - produces an increasing number of circumvention techniques and opportunities - increases the mindset that alternate solutions are possible and worth working on So while it may be disingenuous to contend that _anyone_ could create an alternate root or a alternate RPKI trust anchor, it is not quite as disingenuous to contend that someone could. I also agree with the point that routing is an important topic for governance discussion and that these issues deserve consideration in the IGC and in the governance discussions in general. avri On 5 Feb 2012, at 12:09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > The 14 (!) RFC about the RPKI security system (signing of routing > announcements to avoid new PakistanTelecom vs. YouTube cases) have > been issued: RFC 6480 to 6494. > > There have been unfortunately very few discussions on the RPKI in the > various governance meetings, probably because it is a practical issue. > > A good summary and introduction to the possible political consequences > of the RPKI is still > . > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Feb 5 14:06:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:06:57 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 3:33 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>> ** >>> >>> Thanks for this Marilla but I'm a bit unsure as to the status of what >>> you have quoted below and what role if any the IGC can or should play in >>> this. >>> >>> > Hi Mike, this is a summary of the broad agreements that IGF WG >> participants reached regarding MAG, based on proposals that have been >> advanced by the WG members themselves and also by a larger group of >> interested people (there was an open consultation some time ago, between >> the first and the second meetings of the WG). The text of the report of the >> WG will be drafted during the next meeting, in February. It means that it >> is not carved in stone yet, and that adjustments can be made. This is why I >> believe it would be so important to receive feedback as soon as possible. >> > Marilia, I would encourage you to put the text of the WG on the website to create and generate discussion using: http://www.igcaucus.org/node/add/statement You can then alert the list that you have placed the Statement there and invite feedback. > >> I agree with you when you mention the potential of IG/IGF arrangements to >> influence and to help shaping governance in a broader sense, and I agree >> that we should promote a more organized, constant and consistent debate >> about these issues. >> > I wholeheartedly agee and the Coordinators discussed this on 30th January 2012 > The report from the WG needs to be finalized in May, so I am not sure if >> it is realistic to try to find funding to carry out an event with the >> specific purpose of discussing improvements with the report in mind. >> > I also sent a separate email to the list in relation to evaluation of our functionality with respect to the Charter. > Of course, we should use online channels and take advantage of the >> opportunities we have to meet face to face, such as open consultations, to >> discuss and improve the suggestions that are currently on the table. >> > There was a suggestion made by Avri to the Coordinators which we discussed where an etherpad be available within the website to encourage consultations. Jeremy has enabled this mechanism and we have yet to test it. I invite you Marilia to discuss offline with Jeremy how you can generate feedback on the text created by the working Group. > >> Nevertheless, regardless of the WG, there are ongoing debates that CS >> should be involved (and maybe could even proactively push forward) such as >> the one about IG principles. Wolfgang wrote to the list a couple of times >> about the importance of a CS initiative to look into current proposals of >> regulatory principles, and try to find points of coherence, with view to an >> harmonization. I would strongly support the pursuit of this goal. >> > The development of Internet Governance Principles was also something that was discussed by the Coordinators on the 30th January 2012. We were exploring the concept of bottom up development of these principles and looking for volunteers from the list who are involved within the various regional and national internet governance forums to dedicate one hour slots in their regional or national IGFs to generate discussion and put together what they think should be Internet Governance principles. > >> Best, >> Marília >> >>> >>> >>> -- > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 5 14:16:48 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:16:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Evaluation for the purposes of creating a Strategic Coordination Plan [Call for feedback] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I tend to support remaining with a single email list and using etherpad and wiki for caucus work. Etherpad, assuming it works properly, not only allows for both synchronized cooperation that allows multiple individuals to edit and chat at the same time, it also allow for asynchronous cooperation. Wiki tend to be more access controlled, do not function well with synchronized or overlapping edits but allow for better final document production where there is a smaller editing group. Wiki's also tend to provide better formatting capabilities. I tend to see a progression of effort something like: - Anyone in IGC is free to contribute to an Etherpad that serves as the bottom up contribution part of any effort - getting down all of the various positions. 'Events' can be scheduled like a 48 period when anyone who cares goes to the pad and contributes. - once the ideas are down, a smaller group can move something to a wiki and start crafting the language, the wordsmithing part of an effort. Anyone can still comment, but editing ability get narrowed. - near consensus can be reached on the mailing list and if necessary the voting mechanism can be used to nail down contentious issues. I.e. different Interent tools for different parts of the process, but still leaving things open. In terms of the perennial problem of bothering people who are not interested in a topic with email they don't care about, I suggest we make better use of subject labels and appropriate. While I can live with list proliferation it does decrease bottom-up participation. In terms of Parminder's suggestion of a members only list, I ask: - what do we mean by members - is this to be a secret list - without an open archive. I would be troubled by this. avri On 5 Feb 2012, at 13:45, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > We are pleased that there have been numerous suggestions for improvement from seeking funding, NomCom reforms, reviewing the Charter, creation of mailing lists, consolidation of rules and procedures. > > The Coordinators met on the 30th January, 2012 and one of the Agenda Item was the creation of a modest Strategic Development Plan or a Coordination to evaluate our functionality which specifically is the level of alignment to our Charter etc. The Vision, Mission and Objectives are imported from the Charter although in text below, I have numbered them to make it easy for people to comment etc. > > We can also conduct discussions wiki style on the website. We also noted that the various working groups on the IGC list are inactive based on the IGC Nairobi Face to Face meeting. These include the following:- > • IGC Outreach Working Group; > • IGC Strategy Working Group; > • IGC Work Plan Working Group; > • IGC Charter Review Working Group; > • IGC Working Group for CSTD issues. > > We have the option of reviving these groups. We also have the option of creating new groups but it will need volunteers to be actively involved to drive these Groups. > > > The excellent work that was developed through this list and headed by Norbert Bollow in terms of Internet Governance Mapping has paved a pathway to enable us to strategically discuss and assess our levels of engagement and how we are meeting Charter objectives. As such, kindly find the Charter vision, mission and objectives listed for your view. [This is available from Source: http://www.igcaucus.org/charter ] > > Jeremy Malcolm has built an etherpad into our website to enable us to put thoughts and craft something together. For now, let us know what you think. > IGC Strategic Coordination Plan > VISION: The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all. > MISSION: 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. > Evaluation - means to evaluate current work done by the IGC through its various sub groups etc > No. Objectives Evaluation Comments > 1 Inform civil society and other progressive groups/actors on significant developments impacting on Internet governance policies. > 2 Provide a context for open on line and, wherever and whenever possible, face-to-face debate on the range of issues related to Internet governance policies from a civil society perspective. > 3 Develop an on-going and outcome oriented structure. Create informal relationships with various CS groups and individuals with a direct interest in Internet governance policies, including those involved in human rights, ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security. > 4a Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a stake in some aspect of Internet governance polices. > 4b Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies with similar interests, generally or on specific issues, at various forums involved with Internet governance policies. > 5 For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes, develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such positions. > 6 Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner that is informed by the stated vision of the IGC > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Feb 5 14:31:07 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:31:07 +1300 Subject: [governance] Draft Evaluation for the purposes of creating a Strategic Coordination Plan [Call for feedback] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, There is a need to divert discussions to either the wiki or etherpad. Parminder and Avri, would you be interested in volunteering to put together a flowchart or text on how we can better make use of the etherpad and wiki. This will have to compatible with our website's capacity and if you accept to assist in this regard will need to work with Jeremy who handles our website.If there are others who want to volunteer, let us know. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I tend to support remaining with a single email list and using etherpad > and wiki for caucus work. > > Etherpad, assuming it works properly, not only allows for both > synchronized cooperation that allows multiple individuals to edit and chat > at the same time, it also allow for asynchronous cooperation. Wiki tend to > be more access controlled, do not function well with synchronized or > overlapping edits but allow for better final document production where > there is a smaller editing group. Wiki's also tend to provide better > formatting capabilities. I tend to see a progression of effort something > like: > > - Anyone in IGC is free to contribute to an Etherpad that serves as the > bottom up contribution part of any effort - getting down all of the various > positions. 'Events' can be scheduled like a 48 period when anyone who > cares goes to the pad and contributes. > > - once the ideas are down, a smaller group can move something to a wiki > and start crafting the language, the wordsmithing part of an effort. > Anyone can still comment, but editing ability get narrowed. > > - near consensus can be reached on the mailing list and if necessary the > voting mechanism can be used to nail down contentious issues. > I.e. different Interent tools for different parts of the process, but > still leaving things open. > > In terms of the perennial problem of bothering people who are not > interested in a topic with email they don't care about, I suggest we make > better use of subject labels and appropriate. While I can live with list > proliferation it does decrease bottom-up participation. > > In terms of Parminder's suggestion of a members only list, I ask: > > - what do we mean by members > - is this to be a secret list - without an open archive. I would be > troubled by this. > > avri > > > On 5 Feb 2012, at 13:45, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > We are pleased that there have been numerous suggestions for improvement > from seeking funding, NomCom reforms, reviewing the Charter, creation of > mailing lists, consolidation of rules and procedures. > > > > The Coordinators met on the 30th January, 2012 and one of the Agenda > Item was the creation of a modest Strategic Development Plan or a > Coordination to evaluate our functionality which specifically is the level > of alignment to our Charter etc. The Vision, Mission and Objectives are > imported from the Charter although in text below, I have numbered them to > make it easy for people to comment etc. > > > > We can also conduct discussions wiki style on the website. We also noted > that the various working groups on the IGC list are inactive based on the > IGC Nairobi Face to Face meeting. These include the following:- > > • IGC Outreach Working Group; > > • IGC Strategy Working Group; > > • IGC Work Plan Working Group; > > • IGC Charter Review Working Group; > > • IGC Working Group for CSTD issues. > > > > We have the option of reviving these groups. We also have the option of > creating new groups but it will need volunteers to be actively involved to > drive these Groups. > > > > > > The excellent work that was developed through this list and headed by > Norbert Bollow in terms of Internet Governance Mapping has paved a pathway > to enable us to strategically discuss and assess our levels of engagement > and how we are meeting Charter objectives. As such, kindly find the Charter > vision, mission and objectives listed for your view. [This is available > from Source: http://www.igcaucus.org/charter ] > > > > Jeremy Malcolm has built an etherpad into our website to enable us to > put thoughts and craft something together. For now, let us know what you > think. > > IGC Strategic Coordination Plan > > VISION: The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the > development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of > internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, > cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is > that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and > development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to > Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which > better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all. > > MISSION: 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. > > Evaluation - means to evaluate current work done by the IGC through its > various sub groups etc > > No. Objectives Evaluation Comments > > 1 Inform civil society and other progressive groups/actors on > significant developments impacting on Internet governance policies. > > 2 Provide a context for open on line and, wherever and whenever > possible, face-to-face debate on the range of issues related to Internet > governance policies from a civil society perspective. > > 3 Develop an on-going and outcome oriented structure. Create > informal relationships with various CS groups and individuals with a direct > interest in Internet governance policies, including those involved in human > rights, ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global > electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security. > > 4a Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a > stake in some aspect of Internet governance polices. > > 4b Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies > with similar interests, generally or on specific issues, at various forums > involved with Internet governance policies. > > 5 For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes, > develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance > policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating > broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such > positions. > > 6 Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of > Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner that > is informed by the stated vision of the IGC > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 5 14:52:33 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:52:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Evaluation for the purposes of creating a Strategic Coordination Plan [Call for feedback] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi, A flowchart? Beyond the 3 step I mentioned in my note? Are you looking for pictures? But sure, whatever is needed. I just did not know that the co-cooridinators had decided to go ahead with supporting the Etherpad yet. Once it is made fully available, I will be sure to enter a few of the topics I see as needing further discussions into an etherpad. And I will contribute to those pads and wikis started by others (-: assuming I have an opinion on the subject). avri On 5 Feb 2012, at 14:31, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Hi, > > There is a need to divert discussions to either the wiki or etherpad. Parminder and Avri, would you be interested in volunteering to put > together a flowchart or text on how we can better make use of the etherpad and wiki. This will have to compatible with our website's capacity and if you accept > to assist in this regard will need to work with Jeremy who handles our website.If there are others who want to volunteer, let us know. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I tend to support remaining with a single email list and using etherpad and wiki for caucus work. > > Etherpad, assuming it works properly, not only allows for both synchronized cooperation that allows multiple individuals to edit and chat at the same time, it also allow for asynchronous cooperation. Wiki tend to be more access controlled, do not function well with synchronized or overlapping edits but allow for better final document production where there is a smaller editing group. Wiki's also tend to provide better formatting capabilities. I tend to see a progression of effort something like: > > - Anyone in IGC is free to contribute to an Etherpad that serves as the bottom up contribution part of any effort - getting down all of the various positions. 'Events' can be scheduled like a 48 period when anyone who cares goes to the pad and contributes. > > - once the ideas are down, a smaller group can move something to a wiki and start crafting the language, the wordsmithing part of an effort. Anyone can still comment, but editing ability get narrowed. > > - near consensus can be reached on the mailing list and if necessary the voting mechanism can be used to nail down contentious issues. > I.e. different Interent tools for different parts of the process, but still leaving things open. > > In terms of the perennial problem of bothering people who are not interested in a topic with email they don't care about, I suggest we make better use of subject labels and appropriate. While I can live with list proliferation it does decrease bottom-up participation. > > In terms of Parminder's suggestion of a members only list, I ask: > > - what do we mean by members > - is this to be a secret list - without an open archive. I would be troubled by this. > > avri > > > On 5 Feb 2012, at 13:45, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > We are pleased that there have been numerous suggestions for improvement from seeking funding, NomCom reforms, reviewing the Charter, creation of mailing lists, consolidation of rules and procedures. > > > > The Coordinators met on the 30th January, 2012 and one of the Agenda Item was the creation of a modest Strategic Development Plan or a Coordination to evaluate our functionality which specifically is the level of alignment to our Charter etc. The Vision, Mission and Objectives are imported from the Charter although in text below, I have numbered them to make it easy for people to comment etc. > > > > We can also conduct discussions wiki style on the website. We also noted that the various working groups on the IGC list are inactive based on the IGC Nairobi Face to Face meeting. These include the following:- > > • IGC Outreach Working Group; > > • IGC Strategy Working Group; > > • IGC Work Plan Working Group; > > • IGC Charter Review Working Group; > > • IGC Working Group for CSTD issues. > > > > We have the option of reviving these groups. We also have the option of creating new groups but it will need volunteers to be actively involved to drive these Groups. > > > > > > The excellent work that was developed through this list and headed by Norbert Bollow in terms of Internet Governance Mapping has paved a pathway to enable us to strategically discuss and assess our levels of engagement and how we are meeting Charter objectives. As such, kindly find the Charter vision, mission and objectives listed for your view. [This is available from Source: http://www.igcaucus.org/charter ] > > > > Jeremy Malcolm has built an etherpad into our website to enable us to put thoughts and craft something together. For now, let us know what you think. > > IGC Strategic Coordination Plan > > VISION: The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all. > > MISSION: 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. > > Evaluation - means to evaluate current work done by the IGC through its various sub groups etc > > No. Objectives Evaluation Comments > > 1 Inform civil society and other progressive groups/actors on significant developments impacting on Internet governance policies. > > 2 Provide a context for open on line and, wherever and whenever possible, face-to-face debate on the range of issues related to Internet governance policies from a civil society perspective. > > 3 Develop an on-going and outcome oriented structure. Create informal relationships with various CS groups and individuals with a direct interest in Internet governance policies, including those involved in human rights, ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security. > > 4a Provide outreach to other CS groups who have an interest or a stake in some aspect of Internet governance polices. > > 4b Act as the representative of itself, and other CS constituencies with similar interests, generally or on specific issues, at various forums involved with Internet governance policies. > > 5 For the sake of the above, as well as for more general purposes, develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such positions. > > 6 Anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner that is informed by the stated vision of the IGC > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 16:36:49 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:36:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Europe Rises Up Against ACTA Message-ID: <4F2EF671.9080304@gmail.com> Europe Rises Up Against ACTA George Washington's picture Submitted by George Washington on 02/04/2012 22:19 -0500 http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/europe-rises-against-acta?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29 The widespread protests against the anti-democracy bill ACTA by the Polish people have forced Poland's prime minister to stall -- or perhaps even back out -- of the treaty. As TechDirt notes : Following the growing protests about ACTA in Europe, as well as signs of US meddling , Poland's prime minister is making it clear that Poland will not ratify ACTA for the time being , leading to speculation that the EU may not actually join ACTA. /Tusk's backtracking could spell the end of ACTA for the entire European Union. If Poland or any other EU member state, or the European Parliament itself, fails to ratify the document, it becomes null and void across the union. As it stands, there are already five member countries that have not even signed ACTA./ // /"I share the opinions of those who from the beginning said that consultations were not complete," Tusk said, according to a report in Wirtualna Polska. The 54-year-old prime minister added that a Polish rejection of ACTA is now on the table, and admitted that he had previously approached the agreement from a "20th century" perspective, due to his age. / The Slovenian ambassador to Japan has apologized to her country and her children for signing ACTA, saying she signed it because her government told her to, and "out of civic carelessness" in not bothering to understand what ACTA meant before signing it . Bulgarian and Polish MPs wore Guy Fawkes masks to protest ACTA. Again, from TechDirt : We recently pointed out that a bunch of Polish politicians wore Guy Fawkes/Anonymous masks in Parliament to protest ACTA: SO53v Europe Rises Up Against ACTA It appears that some politicians in Bulgaria thought that was a good idea, and have done the same thing : V22Lv Europe Rises Up Against ACTA Indeed, even the elderly are wearing Guy Fawkes masks in protest of ACTA: z6qZu Europe Rises Up Against ACTA European Parliamentarian Marietje Schaake writes : As a Member of the European Parliament, I very much welcome the increased attention the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has received in the past weeks. It has taken a while for massive outcry to emerge, but we are seeing protest voices getting louder and louder. ARS Technica reports that the Greek Ministry of Justice was hacked by anonymous: The Greek Ministry of Justice had its Web site defaced by Greek and Cypriot Anonymous-affiliated hackers (a mirror of the defaced site is available here ). The hackers included a video message (now removed) complaining that the Greek government had abandoned the democratic will of its people and was instead bending to the will of the IMF and the EU. Greece is expected to accept IMF funds in an effort to allow its government to bring some semblance of sustainability to its finances, but Anonymous believes that this move will "introduce a new dictatorship upon [the Greek] people's shoulders and allow the bankers and the monarchs of the EU to enslave them both economically and politically." The defaced site itself focused on an anti-ACTA message. It warned that Greece had two weeks to "stop ACTA," and that if it failed to do so, some 300 sites would be defaced. The next targets will include both media and ministry sites, with the hackers announcing that they already had passwords for most sites and that this was "JUST the BEGINING [sic]." Swedes are out in force protesting ACTA. As The Local reports : Over 10,000 Swedes had pledged to take part in demonstrations in Stockholm and other cities on Saturday to protest against the ACTA anti-piracy legislation which is set to go before the Riksdag later this year. The demonstration, held at midday on Sergels Torg in the centre of Stockholm, featured speeches from MEPs Christian Engström of the Pirate Party, Carl Schlyter of the Green Party and Mikael Gustavsson of the Left Party. Over eleven thousand people had signed up to attend the Stockholm demonstration on Facebook by 10am on Saturday. Christian Engström told the Dagens Nyheter (DN) daily that with indications that Poland's parliament is set to reject the controversial international anti-piracy legislation, the pirate movement had wind in its sails. "1.4 million signatures have been collected through an online petition and there have been riots in Poland. There now seems to be a commitment among citizens so I feel very hopeful," he told DN. By all accounts, the number of ACTA protests in Europe is overwhelming: 7Vj5G Europe Rises Up Against ACTA But that only tells half of the story. As Pirate Party found Rick Falvinge reports : Just look at this map. I've never seen anything like it in terms of people all across Europe demanding their freedom of speech and being angry against backroom corporativist deals that steals their most basic civil liberties. *** This is not Hollywood versus Silicon Valley, as oldmedia likes to frame it. This is Hollywood versus /The People/. For decades, they have trained us to think in black and white, in good versus evil fighting for domination of the free world. And now, they've gone and put themselves in the role of evil villain. The copyright cartel thought they were battling Google. They're not. They're waging war against the people, with the help of the politicians. And we're not standing for it. We can't change the copyright cartel, but we can send a clear message to the politicians that 250 million Europeans sharing and preserving contemporary culture is /not a problem/. It is a /power base of 250 million voters/ that will /kick you out of office/ if you dare so much as touch the net. And there are visible cracks in the façade, especially seeing Poland falter and the copyright cartels visibly shaken from the SOPA defeat in the US, with the politicians having started to pay attention to what the Internet wants. *We can win this.* *Today, Sweden rallies.* List of rallies below (via Christian Engström, Member of European Parliament): * *Stockholm*: /Sergels Torg, 12 noon./ [Facebook ] * *Göteborg*: /Götaplatsen, 12 noon./ [Facebook ] * *Malmö*: /Stortorget, at the Karl X Gustav statue, 12 noon./ [Facebook ] * *Helsingborg*: /at the Magnus Stenbock statue, 13:00./ [Facebook ] * *Umeå* : /Apberget, 12 noon./ [Facebook ] * *Kalmar*: /Giraffens Köpcentrum, 12 noon./ [Facebook ] * *Sundsvall*: /Torget, 12 noon./ [Facebook ] * *Karlstad*: /Stora Torget, 12 noon./ [Facebook ] * *Borlänge*: /Jussi Björlings torg, 12 noon./ [Facebook ] (The observant will note that less than half of these rallies are marked on the already-impressive map of European rallies. Makes me wonder what the map would look like if all rallies were included.) Most of Europe will rally next Saturday, on February 11. That's going to be something, too. Let's give Europe the best of precursor to those rallies from Sweden that they could possibly get! As of early morning on February 4, 11,000 people have committed to coming to the Stockholm rally, with another 3,500 maybes. Those are numbers that would overfill the /Plattan/ plaza by a wide margin. I'll be at the rally in Stockholm, Sweden, and will be taking plenty of imagery and will follow up here. *UPDATE AT 1500:* *** anti ACTA stockholm Feb04 621x349 Europe Rises Up Against ACTA Rally at the Sergels Torg plaza in Stockholm, Sweden. Anna Troberg, leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, speaking (at left) and maybe 1/3 of the crowd. The turnout was like *nothing I've seen* for a February rally in Sweden. In -20°C, there were well over a thousand people protesting corporate rights over their freedom of speech; normally, you're lucky getting 50. Also, there was a very clear recurring theme among the Members of European Parliament speaking, MEPs from three different parties. They all told the story of how software patents had been defeated in Europe, followed by the crucial "amendment 138? in the Telecoms Package, which aimed to shut people off /en masse/ from the Net. Well, thanks to diligent activists and people on the inside, we managed to get as strong safeguards in place as possible against shutting people off. But the monopoly lobbyists never quit. Now they're *at it again*, this time saying that if *authorities* can't shut people off /en masse/ due to that "amendment 138?, maybe they can get *private corporations* -- the ISPs -- to do it instead through third-party liability forcing certain terms of service and wiretapping. *Hence, ACTA.* Fortunately, and this was a consistent message from all Members of European Parliament, *we have the blueprint for defeating ACTA.* We need to repeat what we did with the software patents and with the Telecoms Package. It takes hard work, it takes tons of activism, but we know exactly what to do and how to do it, and most importantly: /we know that we can win/. As the rally concluded, everybody was determined to win this fight, having heard the clear message that it takes work but is perfectly doable. *UPDATE 2*: There are more photos from Christian Engström, Member of European Parliament here . Free for any use (CC0 / Public Domain). Here's one of his photos, showing the protester crowd: IMG 1790 621x349 Europe Rises Up Against ACTA Average: 5 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-7813.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1527 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: V22Lv.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 39245 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: z6qZu.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 540645 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 7Vj5G.png Type: image/png Size: 292909 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: anti-ACTA-stockholm-Feb04-621x349.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 106143 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG_1790-621x349.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 103533 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 Sun Feb 5 16:42:35 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:42:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Illinois Bill Would Outlaw Employers From Asking For Applicants' Social Media Passwords Message-ID: <4F2EF7CB.2050701@gmail.com> Illinois Bill Would Outlaw Employers From Asking For Applicants' Social Media Passwords Facebook Passwords Employers First Posted: 02/ 5/2012 2:06 pmUpdated: 02/ 5/2012 2:59 pm http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/illinois-bill-would-outla_n_1255881.html An Illinois legislator has introduced a proposal that would bar employers from asking prospective employees for their usernames or passwords in order to gain access to their profiles on sites like Facebook or Twitter. Rep. La Shawn Ford (D-Chicago) introduced the bill (HB 3782 ) last spring, but the measure was recently taken up by the state legislature's Labor Committee. The bill would amend the state's Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act to make it illegal for employers to gain access to a prospective employee's account on any social networking site during the hiring process. The measure would not, however, prevent employers from considering information found on an applicants' public profile -- such content remains fair game and as many as 50 percent of employers say they rely on social networking sites to help them screen potential employees . Ford explained, as reported by WJBC, that when prospective employers access an applicant's social networking account, they may gain access to sensitive financial information and other personal details that should remain private . "If legislators had to give their Twitter and Facebook account passwords how would they like that? They wouldn't like it. They wouldn't want to give their password to anyone because it's their personal password," Ford said. The bill was criticized by state Rep. Jill Tracy (R-Quincy), Republican spokesperson of the state Labor Committee, as over-regulating businesses , the /Chicago Tribune/ reports. The measure will be the subject of a hearing Tuesday before the Labor Committee. Reports emerged last year that some job applicants, including one individual who applied for a clerical position with a North Carolina police force, were asked for their passwords for any websites such as Facebook or Myspace as part of a background check their potential employers wanted to run , the /Daily Mail/ reported. The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland spoke out last year against the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services after they allegedly ordered an employee to hand over his Facebook password if he wanted to see his job reinstated . The ACLU called such a demand "a frightening and illegal invasion of privacy" and the department suspended the practice, according to /The Atlantic/. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: r-FACEBOOK-PASSWORDS-EMPLOYERS-large570.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36655 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 acm.org Sun Feb 5 17:47:11 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:47:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Illinois Bill Would Outlaw Employers From Asking For Applicants' Social Media Passwords In-Reply-To: <4F2EF7CB.2050701@gmail.com> References: <4F2EF7CB.2050701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <625AAF76-E58E-459A-862E-123AD0A180D8@acm.org> > Illinois Bill Would Outlaw Employers From Asking For Applicants' Social Media Passwords Employers actually do that? I never knew. it is amazing the privileges some employers think they merit. avri On 5 Feb 2012, at 16:42, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Illinois Bill Would Outlaw Employers From Asking For Applicants' Social Media Passwords > > > First Posted: 02/ 5/2012 2:06 pm Updated: 02/ 5/2012 2:59 pm > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/05/illinois-bill-would-outla_n_1255881.html > > An Illinois legislator has introduced a proposal that would bar employers from asking prospective employees for their usernames or passwords in order to gain access to their profiles on sites like Facebook or Twitter. > > Rep. La Shawn Ford (D-Chicago) introduced the bill (HB 3782) last spring, but the measure was recently taken up by the state legislature's Labor Committee. > > The bill would amend the state's Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act to make it illegal for employers to gain access to a prospective employee's account on any social networking site during the hiring process. > > The measure would not, however, prevent employers from considering information found on an applicants' public profile -- such content remains fair game and as many as 50 percent of employers say they rely on social networking sites to help them screen potential employees. > > Ford explained, as reported by WJBC, that when prospective employers access an applicant's social networking account, they may gain access to sensitive financial information and other personal details that should remain private. > > "If legislators had to give their Twitter and Facebook account passwords how would they like that? They wouldn't like it. They wouldn't want to give their password to anyone because it's their personal password," Ford said. > > The bill was criticized by state Rep. Jill Tracy (R-Quincy), Republican spokesperson of the state Labor Committee, as over-regulating businesses, the Chicago Tribune reports. > > The measure will be the subject of a hearing Tuesday before the Labor Committee. > Reports emerged last year that some job applicants, including one individual who applied for a clerical position with a North Carolina police force, were asked for their passwords for any websites such as Facebook or Myspace as part of a background check their potential employers wanted to run, the Daily Mail reported. > > The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland spoke out last year against the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services after they allegedly ordered an employee to hand over his Facebook password if he wanted to see his job reinstated. The ACLU called such a demand "a frightening and illegal invasion of privacy" and the department suspended the practice, according to The Atlantic. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Feb 6 04:47:27 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:47:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Feb 2012 Geneva meetings Message-ID: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> Dear coordinators Could you please send a summary of the thread in which people posted who would be in Geneva for the meetings next week? I arrive on the 14th and will be a bit late for the meeting.. but perhaps the CS people can meet for lunch on the 14th. Best Anriette -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 6 05:15:25 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:15:25 +0200 Subject: Feb 2012 IGF open consultation inputs, was Re: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F2FA83D.608@apc.org> Hi all Changing the subjectline... The CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements will meet in 2 weeks time and as Marilia said and will finalise its report for May. Good to get input from people on the rolling report... In further response to Michael's question about what role the IGC can play aside from this input... Many of the recommendations before that CSTD WG on IGF improvements can also be made as recommendations for organising the upcoming IGF. In fact, the Secretariat has already implemented some of these for past IGFs, such as, for example, MAG members working with interested/informed individuals from outside the MAG in planning main sessions. Other recommendations could relate to keeping developing country and civil society participation strong (e.g. if you look at the participation statistics - which Chengetai did an excellent report on at the last CSTD meeting - you will notice that CS participation seems to have dropped since the previous IGF). Other recommendations for the next IGF which could be useful for overall IGF improvements include: - formats of reports - evaluation of workshops and main sessions - workshop formats and workshop application formats - workshop main session linkages.. and so on - MAG working methods (for the next IGF) - communicating IGF outcomes/messages/proceedings more effectively - how to get more media attention - improving remote participation .. and so on In other words, it would be strategic for IGC people to scan the WG in IGF improvement reports and reinforce recommendations they agree with by also making those that are relevant in the short term in the context of the upcoming IGF. Best Anriette On 05/02/12 17:01, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 3:33 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Thanks for this Marilla but I'm a bit unsure as to the > status of what you have quoted below and what role if any > the IGC can or should play in this. > > Hi Mike, this is a summary of the broad agreements that IGF WG > participants reached regarding MAG, based on proposals that have > been advanced by the WG members themselves and also by a larger > group of interested people (there was an open consultation some time > ago, between the first and the second meetings of the WG). The text > of the report of the WG will be drafted during the next meeting, in > February. It means that it is not carved in stone yet, and that > adjustments can be made. This is why I believe it would be so > important to receive feedback as soon as possible. > > I agree with you when you mention the potential of IG/IGF > arrangements to influence and to help shaping governance in a > broader sense, and I agree that we should promote a more organized, > constant and consistent debate about these issues. The report from > the WG needs to be finalized in May, so I am not sure if it is > realistic to try to find funding to carry out an event with the > specific purpose of discussing improvements with the report in mind. > Of course, we should use online channels and take advantage of the > opportunities we have to meet face to face, such as open > consultations, to discuss and improve the suggestions that are > currently on the table. > > Nevertheless, regardless of the WG, there are ongoing debates that > CS should be involved (and maybe could even proactively push > forward) such as the one about IG principles. Wolfgang wrote to the > list a couple of times about the importance of a CS initiative to > look into current proposals of regulatory principles, and try to > find points of coherence, with view to an harmonization. I would > strongly support the pursuit of this goal. > > Best, > Marília > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 6 08:03:27 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 14:03:27 +0100 Subject: Feb 2012 IGF open consultation inputs, was Re: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT] In-Reply-To: <4F2FA83D.608@apc.org> References: <4F2FA83D.608@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette, I agree with you on these various proposals. It would be beneficial for all of these reports can be reunited in a single medium for good traceability in time. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/6 Anriette Esterhuysen > Hi all > > Changing the subjectline... > > The CSTD Working Group on IGF improvements will meet in 2 weeks time and > as Marilia said and will finalise its report for May. Good to get input > from people on the rolling report... > > In further response to Michael's question about what role the IGC can > play aside from this input... > > Many of the recommendations before that CSTD WG on IGF improvements can > also be made as recommendations for organising the upcoming IGF. > > In fact, the Secretariat has already implemented some of these for past > IGFs, such as, for example, MAG members working with interested/informed > individuals from outside the MAG in planning main sessions. > > Other recommendations could relate to keeping developing country and > civil society participation strong (e.g. if you look at the > participation statistics - which Chengetai did an excellent report on at > the last CSTD meeting - you will notice that CS participation seems to > have dropped since the previous IGF). > > Other recommendations for the next IGF which could be useful for overall > IGF improvements include: > > - formats of reports > - evaluation of workshops and main sessions > - workshop formats and workshop application formats > - workshop main session linkages.. and so on > - MAG working methods (for the next IGF) > - communicating IGF outcomes/messages/proceedings more effectively > - how to get more media attention > - improving remote participation .. and so on > > In other words, it would be strategic for IGC people to scan the WG in > IGF improvement reports and reinforce recommendations they agree with by > also making those that are relevant in the short term in the context of > the upcoming IGF. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > > On 05/02/12 17:01, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 3:33 PM, michael gurstein > > wrote: > > > > Thanks for this Marilla but I'm a bit unsure as to the > > status of what you have quoted below and what role if any > > the IGC can or should play in this. > > > > Hi Mike, this is a summary of the broad agreements that IGF WG > > participants reached regarding MAG, based on proposals that have > > been advanced by the WG members themselves and also by a larger > > group of interested people (there was an open consultation some time > > ago, between the first and the second meetings of the WG). The text > > of the report of the WG will be drafted during the next meeting, in > > February. It means that it is not carved in stone yet, and that > > adjustments can be made. This is why I believe it would be so > > important to receive feedback as soon as possible. > > > > I agree with you when you mention the potential of IG/IGF > > arrangements to influence and to help shaping governance in a > > broader sense, and I agree that we should promote a more organized, > > constant and consistent debate about these issues. The report from > > the WG needs to be finalized in May, so I am not sure if it is > > realistic to try to find funding to carry out an event with the > > specific purpose of discussing improvements with the report in mind. > > Of course, we should use online channels and take advantage of the > > opportunities we have to meet face to face, such as open > > consultations, to discuss and improve the suggestions that are > > currently on the table. > > > > Nevertheless, regardless of the WG, there are ongoing debates that > > CS should be involved (and maybe could even proactively push > > forward) such as the one about IG principles. Wolfgang wrote to the > > list a couple of times about the importance of a CS initiative to > > look into current proposals of regulatory principles, and try to > > find points of coherence, with view to an harmonization. I would > > strongly support the pursuit of this goal. > > > > Best, > > Marília > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 7 14:11:16 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:11:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google removes offensive webpages as ordered by Indian court,(Xinhua) Message-ID: <4F317754.6030608@gmail.com> Google removes offensive webpages as ordered by Indian court (Xinhua ) 15:17, February 07, 2012 NEW DELHI, Feb. 7 (Xinhua) -- The U.S.-based search giant Google has told a trial court in the Indian capital that it has removed certain offensive webpages from the web in compliance with the court's order, local media reported Tuesday. Google India informed the court of additional civil judge Praveen Singh that as per its directions, the search giant has removed the contents, the daily The Times of India reported. The court had last December directed Google and 21 other websites, many foreign-based, to remove all the objectionable content in the form of photographs, videos or texts which might hurt religious sentiments. Meanwhile, Facebook India told the court that it does not control or operate the servers that host the website available at www.facebook.com, which are located in the United States. In fact, the court's order was in the wake of a civil case filed by a man who sought removal of "anti-religious" or "anti- social" content in the form of photographs, videos or texts which might hurt religious sentiments. While Facebook and Google India filed their compliance reports, Yahoo! and Microsoft filed applications for deletion of their names from the civil complaint stating that there was no allegation against them of webcasting any objectionable content, the report said. After the hearing, the court directed the accused to file compliance report within 15 days from the date of the order while fixing the matter for further arguments on March 1. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: icon16.gif Type: image/gif Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: icon17.gif Type: image/gif Size: 89 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: icon18.gif Type: image/gif Size: 79 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 acm.org Tue Feb 7 22:49:43 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 22:49:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Feb 2012 Geneva meetings In-Reply-To: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> Message-ID: Have we set up anything for Monday? avri On 6 Feb 2012, at 04:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear coordinators > > Could you please send a summary of the thread in which people posted who > would be in Geneva for the meetings next week? > > I arrive on the 14th and will be a bit late for the meeting.. but > perhaps the CS people can meet for lunch on the 14th. > > Best > > Anriette > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Feb 8 03:21:05 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:21:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google removes offensive webpages as ordered by Indian court,(Xinhua) In-Reply-To: <4F317754.6030608@gmail.com> References: <4F317754.6030608@gmail.com> Message-ID: And in a similar IBSA vein… Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/07/brazil_twitter/ Brazil sues Twitter over police checkpoint tweets Threatens $290k fine… daily Internet governance begins at home, but I guess a United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies with a mandate to "facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies" could help with the development of complementary/reinforcing global standards… Bill On Feb 7, 2012, at 8:11 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Google removes offensive webpages as ordered by Indian court > > (Xinhua) > > 15:17, February 07, 2012 > > NEW DELHI, Feb. 7 (Xinhua) -- The U.S.-based search giant Google has told a trial court in the Indian capital that it has removed certain offensive webpages from the web in compliance with the court's order, local media reported Tuesday. > > Google India informed the court of additional civil judge Praveen Singh that as per its directions, the search giant has removed the contents, the daily The Times of India reported. > > The court had last December directed Google and 21 other websites, many foreign-based, to remove all the objectionable content in the form of photographs, videos or texts which might hurt religious sentiments. > > Meanwhile, Facebook India told the court that it does not control or operate the servers that host the website available at www.facebook.com, which are located in the United States. > > In fact, the court's order was in the wake of a civil case filed by a man who sought removal of "anti-religious" or "anti- social" content in the form of photographs, videos or texts which might hurt religious sentiments. > > While Facebook and Google India filed their compliance reports, Yahoo! and Microsoft filed applications for deletion of their names from the civil complaint stating that there was no allegation against them of webcasting any objectionable content, the report said. > > After the hearing, the court directed the accused to file compliance report within 15 days from the date of the order while fixing the matter for further arguments on March 1. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 8 04:44:29 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:44:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] The standards about the RPKI are out In-Reply-To: <60C4DDEA-CAA2-420F-888F-F82631D36CA9@acm.org> References: <20120205170955.GA12463@sources.org> <60C4DDEA-CAA2-420F-888F-F82631D36CA9@acm.org> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > and the authors' contention > >> As long as it is unclear how RPKI achieves compatibility among multiple roots, it is disingenuous to pretend that RPKI allows ISPs a free choice of trust anchors >> ... > > Today we find more efforts in the creation of various forms of circumvention. I think this has the folliwng effects: > > - serves as a warning for those who look to impose strictly hierarchical regimes > - produces an increasing number of circumvention techniques and opportunities > - increases the mindset that alternate solutions are possible and worth working on > > So while it may be disingenuous to contend that _anyone_ could create an alternate root or a alternate RPKI trust anchor, it is not quite as disingenuous to contend that someone could. > > I also agree with the point that routing is an important topic for governance discussion and that these issues deserve consideration in the IGC and in the governance discussions in general. Avri - The author's contention has been overtaken by events, in that one of the IETF RPKI drafts specifically addresses how parties that want to use RPKI should be able to control their reliance on any given trust anchor and be able to establish their own local rules for what information to utilize. The proposed RPKI capability is on the IETF Standards Track and can be found here: 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 avri at acm.org Wed Feb 8 10:03:02 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:03:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] The standards about the RPKI are out In-Reply-To: References: <20120205170955.GA12463@sources.org> <60C4DDEA-CAA2-420F-888F-F82631D36CA9@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi John, Thanks for the pointer, will read the draft. >From my first cursory glance seems like there might be a good governance discussion to be had that would revolve around this issue and that draft. I am not sure yet how this draft indicates that the author's contentions are overcome by events, but I will look for that understanding in my reading. thanks again, avri On 8 Feb 2012, at 04:44, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 5, 2012, at 7:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> and the authors' contention >> >>> As long as it is unclear how RPKI achieves compatibility among multiple roots, it is disingenuous to pretend that RPKI allows ISPs a free choice of trust anchors >>> ... >> >> Today we find more efforts in the creation of various forms of circumvention. I think this has the folliwng effects: >> >> - serves as a warning for those who look to impose strictly hierarchical regimes >> - produces an increasing number of circumvention techniques and opportunities >> - increases the mindset that alternate solutions are possible and worth working on >> >> So while it may be disingenuous to contend that _anyone_ could create an alternate root or a alternate RPKI trust anchor, it is not quite as disingenuous to contend that someone could. >> >> I also agree with the point that routing is an important topic for governance discussion and that these issues deserve consideration in the IGC and in the governance discussions in general. > > > Avri - > > The author's contention has been overtaken by events, in that > one of the IETF RPKI drafts specifically addresses how parties > that want to use RPKI should be able to control their reliance > on any given trust anchor and be able to establish their own > local rules for what information to utilize. The proposed RPKI > capability is on the IETF Standards Track and can be found here: > > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 arin.net Wed Feb 8 10:30:25 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:30:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] The standards about the RPKI are out In-Reply-To: References: <20120205170955.GA12463@sources.org> <60C4DDEA-CAA2-420F-888F-F82631D36CA9@acm.org> Message-ID: On Feb 8, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi John, > > Thanks for the pointer, will read the draft. > > From my first cursory glance seems like there might be a good governance discussion to be had that would revolve around this issue and that draft. I am not sure yet how this draft indicates that the author's contentions are overcome by events, but I will look for that understanding in my reading. Per the referenced specification: " This document describes a mechanism by which an RP may override any conflicting information expressed via the putative TAs and the certificates downloaded from the RPKI repository system. To effect this local control, this document calls for a relying party to specify a set of bindings between public key identifiers and resources (IP resources and/or AS number resources) through a text file known as a constraints file. The constraints expressed in this file then take precedence over any competing claims expressed by resource certificates acquired from the distributed repository system. " The result of its implementation is that any relying party (including ISPs) can unambiguously determine which information from which trust anchors they will believe, directly addressing the item raised in author's contention ("As long as it is unclear how RPKI achieves compatibility among multiple roots, it is disingenuous to pretend that RPKI allows ISPs a free choice of trust anchors") Now, it is also the case that the understanding necessary to actually configure these constraints to override any received TA information is quite technical due to the nature of the PKI system, and thus non-trivial to implement. This will definitely inhibit capricious use, but won't get in the way from ISPs putting appropriate entries in place if an egregious act required intervention. 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 avri at acm.org Wed Feb 8 10:42:05 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:42:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] The standards about the RPKI are out In-Reply-To: References: <20120205170955.GA12463@sources.org> <60C4DDEA-CAA2-420F-888F-F82631D36CA9@acm.org> Message-ID: <50BC27BF-5959-4BEC-8613-B6BE7BBEA104@acm.org> Hi, Thanks again. This does bring up the question: to what extent with this capability be implemented by the equipment providers and to what extent doe people expect it to be deployed. Is thee already good lots of running code and trial implementations. Are ISPs buying into it and ready to test and deploy? Also, are you arguing that there is nothing to be seen here, and we should just move on because there is no governance issue that needs exploration and understanding? I.e IETF is taking care of it, so we have nothing to be concerned about. Thanks avri On 8 Feb 2012, at 10:30, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 8, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> Thanks for the pointer, will read the draft. >> >> From my first cursory glance seems like there might be a good governance discussion to be had that would revolve around this issue and that draft. I am not sure yet how this draft indicates that the author's contentions are overcome by events, but I will look for that understanding in my reading. > > Per the referenced specification: > > " This document describes a mechanism by which an RP may override > any conflicting information expressed via the putative TAs and > the certificates downloaded from the RPKI repository system. > > To effect this local control, this document calls for a relying party > to specify a set of bindings between public key identifiers and > resources (IP resources and/or AS number resources) through a text > file known as a constraints file. The constraints expressed in this > file then take precedence over any competing claims expressed by > resource certificates acquired from the distributed repository > system. " > > The result of its implementation is that any relying party (including > ISPs) can unambiguously determine which information from which trust > anchors they will believe, directly addressing the item raised in author's > contention ("As long as it is unclear how RPKI achieves compatibility > among multiple roots, it is disingenuous to pretend that RPKI allows > ISPs a free choice of trust anchors") > > Now, it is also the case that the understanding necessary to actually > configure these constraints to override any received TA information is > quite technical due to the nature of the PKI system, and thus non-trivial > to implement. This will definitely inhibit capricious use, but won't get > in the way from ISPs putting appropriate entries in place if an egregious > act required intervention. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 10:50:28 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:50:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Access Challenges: Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The closest we get to is the localized solution what we call in the local market as Home Brewed UPS that has a conversion unit and two car batteries attached to it: http://www.systek.com.pk/ When I am back home, I will try to buy one of these UPS in the coming months but the challenge is how to acquire solar batteries to charge the batteries even when there isn't electricity for like 4 hours and the unit wouldn't be able to get charged. I still have to check prices with them but its an investment of $750 and the batteries may have to be changed every year. Best Fouad On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > One of the issues with these problems would seem to be the inability of some > (perhaps many) people in the developed world to comprehend the challenge. > > Here in Saint Lucia I must say we seem to be fairly lucky, although the > weather can change that situation rather rapidly. However I particularly > remember a message on the GKD list, several years ago now, posted by an > ecstatically happy person who had managed to rig up a generator powered by a > stationary bicycle (someone had to pedal it of course) and so run a computer > for the village. A reply came almost immediately from someone - I think in > the United States, but certainly in the economic 'North' - who deplored the > demeaning and unnecessary use of human labour and proposed an alternative > like solar cells. > > In the 'South' we learn to manage with what we have. There is an almost > unbridgeable comprehension gap - a perspective/perception divide - between > those who can take things (like an electricity supply) for granted and those > who can't. > > Certainly this is an area which could be given a little more attention. > > Deirdre > > On 2 February 2012 17:50, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> These are excerpts from another thread that is related to Access. >> >> >> >> " I know well that some - far away - people just cannot understand what it >> actually means not to have regular electricity. >> >> Just to share a memory: when I operated the only ISP in Cambodia early >> 1994 to mid 1997, this was my electricity supply for the system, which I put >> together from what I could find on the local market: >> >> Japanese 24 Volt DC truck battery >> Thai charger from 220 AC when we had public electricity supply >> >> US inverter 24 V DC to 110 V AC (specially imported) >> >> Vietnamese transformer 110 V AC to 220 V AC >> home grown 220 V AC - mostly enough capacity, but not always - until the >> public electricity started again >> >> Sorry, a bit off list - but it is a plea to all who do not have regular >> electricity disruptions, to understand what different economic/technological >> conditions can mean." >> >> >> Norbert Klein >> >> >> >> "I had the privilege to visit our dear compa Norbert in Phnom Penh around >> that time and testify to the incredible magic he managed to make with >> those disparate electrical parts to keep the system alive." >> >> >> Carlos Afonso >> >> >> >> yes the issues are complex. The prices of such devices especially when >> the economy is totally in the dirt makes it really hard to manage the >> kitchen and invest in such solutions. Lets hope for the best. They >> also shot up the oil prices last night and things are just beyond >> control......we are an immature democracy but the governance doesn't >> seem to get its act straight even after completing almost 4 years of >> government. >> >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Fouad and Norbert raised an often overlooked and important issue in >>> relation to challenges with Access to the Internet. Over the years we have >>> seen countries around the world offering broadband stimulus in their >>> respective countries, refine policies etc to address the issue of the >>> demand. >>> >>> In the developing world or emerging markets, there are interesting >>> challenges that beset these countries. When natural disasters happen such as >>>  the tsunami in American Samoa, the local telcos were not able to handle the >>> volume of calls in and out etc. There was some access to the internet that >>> allowed the world to know of their plight. Similarly when Haiti was beset by >>> the earthquake, it  destroyed infrastructure as well. Considering the recent >>> tsunami in Japan and how it cost them $300billion in damages. Thing of >>> developed countries that face similar devastation. >>> >>> There are many countries that struggle with energy grid and we know that >>> to have proper infrastructure one needs energy to drive this aside from >>> transportation. In a country in the Pacific where not too long ago they had >>> just discovered people where mortality rates were extremely low etc. Cutting >>> roads through some of the terrain in PNG is challenging and most Telcos >>> build by transporting equipment through helicopters etc. The additional >>> challenges are land conflicts which can retard development. Whilst >>> Governments are addressing this through policies, it remains a challenge. >>> >>> As the bandwidth consumption is forecasted to grow and clear product >>> lines from Vendors will evolve to be more efficient, developing countries >>> face another challenge being on the receiving end of inefficient products >>> thus perpetuating the cycle of inefficiency. Whilst there are standards and >>> trade laws in place, affordability is a critical issue. >>> >>> Another challenge is preparing ISP Networks to transition to IPv6 and it >>> is good to see how some European countries have encouraged IPv6 Transition >>> through procument policies etc. >>> >>> The IGF has and continues to be an excellent model in sharing lessons and >>> experiences and it is always great to see how countries grow their broadband >>> networks, the types of stimuli that they offered, the mistakes that they >>> made. >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Feb 8 11:27:19 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:27:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] The standards about the RPKI are out In-Reply-To: <50BC27BF-5959-4BEC-8613-B6BE7BBEA104@acm.org> References: <20120205170955.GA12463@sources.org> <60C4DDEA-CAA2-420F-888F-F82631D36CA9@acm.org> <50BC27BF-5959-4BEC-8613-B6BE7BBEA104@acm.org> Message-ID: On Feb 8, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > This does bring up the question: to what extent with this capability be implemented by the equipment providers and to what extent doe people expect it to be deployed. Is thee already good lots of running code and trial implementations. Are ISPs buying into it and ready to test and deploy? The specification is only two months old, and while I believe that there is running code, you'd need to check with the authors regarding what testing and development activities are underway. > Also, are you arguing that there is nothing to be seen here, and we should just move on because there is no governance issue that needs exploration and understanding? I.e IETF is taking care of it, so we have nothing to be concerned about. Strange. I have said nothing of the sort, only that the author's particular assertion has been overtaken by events. Depending on one's definition of "Internet Governance", there are certainly aspects of RPKI which warrant consideration (but then again for some definitions of IG that may be said of nearly every component of Internet infrastructure...) Example: Layer 2 switches often are built with the ability to relay all packets received on any port to a monitoring port. Is this technical capability an Internet Governance matter? What if the monitoring port can be accessed remotely in a surreptitious manner? What if vendors provided the access details to governments upon request? At one point did this technical capability move into a "governance" matter, with implications far beyond that of simple compliance with law? Personally, I do see Internet Governance considerations with respect to RPKI, but not arising from the technical capabilities, but from the inherent control and transparency aspects that arise with the potential for government intervention in RPKI matters. I will note, however, that these issues all exist presently, in that governments can already obtain the exact same outcomes if they can order changes be made to the Internet number registries. Whether the technology is the Whois directories of address registrants, or the present routing registries that are run by RIRs, or the emerging use of RPKI, the issues are pretty much the same: - Under what circumstances are governments expected/allowed to intervene in the Internet infrastructure? - What transparency should exist regarding these interventions? - How are intergovernmental issues minimized during interventions? In my personal opinion, establishing common expectations for questions such as the above should be the priority, and serve to focus on the actual concerns that need community exploration and understanding. My thoughts alone; I have not consulted with any other parties in the preparation of these views, including specifically ARIN, ICANN, USG, UN, ITU, or any candidate for the upcoming US Presidential election. FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 8 11:48:59 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:48:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Feb 2012 Geneva meetings In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, Putting it another way: Is anyone else in Geneva on Monday and is anyone interested in gathering together sometime, somewhere, to discuss some of the issue coming up regarding the IGF, including civil society goals for the consultation and especially for the Baku meeting. I know we plan to meet at lunch on tuesday, and I think that is good, but those gatherings seem better for quick tactical discussions related to the upcoming afternoon meeting rather than trying to find common cause on the larger issues. Also, has anyone gotten a clue yet on whether IGF's NY UN parent plans to release the names of the MAG before Tuesday? It seems like it would be good for those people to know. avri On 7 Feb 2012, at 22:49, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Have we set up anything for Monday? > > avri > > On 6 Feb 2012, at 04:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear coordinators >> >> Could you please send a summary of the thread in which people posted who >> would be in Geneva for the meetings next week? >> >> I arrive on the 14th and will be a bit late for the meeting.. but >> perhaps the CS people can meet for lunch on the 14th. >> >> Best >> >> Anriette >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 13:00:23 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:30:23 -0430 Subject: [governance] Feb 2012 Geneva meetings In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> Message-ID: If a meeting is held on long-term plans, please consider if you are willing to include me and/or others as Skype participants. I will be following the meetings online, and am particularly interested in long-term strategies being decided now. Thanks! Cheers, gp \ Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* On 8 February 2012 12:18, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Putting it another way: > > Is anyone else in Geneva on Monday and is anyone interested in gathering > together sometime, somewhere, to discuss some of the issue coming up > regarding the IGF, including civil society goals for the consultation and > especially for the Baku meeting. > > I know we plan to meet at lunch on tuesday, and I think that is good, but > those gatherings seem better for quick tactical discussions related to the > upcoming afternoon meeting rather than trying to find common cause on the > larger issues. > > Also, has anyone gotten a clue yet on whether IGF's NY UN parent plans to > release the names of the MAG before Tuesday? It seems like it would be > good for those people to know. > > avri > > > > On 7 Feb 2012, at 22:49, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > > > Have we set up anything for Monday? > > > > avri > > > > On 6 Feb 2012, at 04:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > >> Dear coordinators > >> > >> Could you please send a summary of the thread in which people posted who > >> would be in Geneva for the meetings next week? > >> > >> I arrive on the 14th and will be a bit late for the meeting.. but > >> perhaps the CS people can meet for lunch on the 14th. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Anriette > >> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >> executive director, association for progressive communications > >> www.apc.org > >> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >> south africa > >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Feb 8 13:01:23 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:01:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Feb 2012 Geneva meetings In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> Message-ID: <7A6B0CE2-8981-413E-A192-E300CBE29FF5@privaterra.org> Avri, I arrive on Sunday, so happy to meet up with you and others on Monday. What time(s) do you suggest? Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-08, at 11:48 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Putting it another way: > > Is anyone else in Geneva on Monday and is anyone interested in gathering together sometime, somewhere, to discuss some of the issue coming up regarding the IGF, including civil society goals for the consultation and especially for the Baku meeting. > > I know we plan to meet at lunch on tuesday, and I think that is good, but those gatherings seem better for quick tactical discussions related to the upcoming afternoon meeting rather than trying to find common cause on the larger issues. > > Also, has anyone gotten a clue yet on whether IGF's NY UN parent plans to release the names of the MAG before Tuesday? It seems like it would be good for those people to know. > > avri > > > > On 7 Feb 2012, at 22:49, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> >> Have we set up anything for Monday? >> >> avri >> >> On 6 Feb 2012, at 04:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear coordinators >>> >>> Could you please send a summary of the thread in which people posted who >>> would be in Geneva for the meetings next week? >>> >>> I arrive on the 14th and will be a bit late for the meeting.. but >>> perhaps the CS people can meet for lunch on the 14th. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 8 15:13:06 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:13:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Feb 2012 Geneva meetings In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> Message-ID: In message , at 11:48:59 on Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Avri Doria writes >Also, has anyone gotten a clue yet on whether IGF's NY UN parent plans >to release the names of the MAG before Tuesday? It seems like it would >be good for those people to know. I know there have been some previous MAG-rotations where new members were only given a couple of weeks to get to their first meeting, but is this February one even expecting to have been rotated? And while we are talking about such things, any news on replacements for Nitin and Markus, or who is chairing this next meeting? -- 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Feb 8 15:27:26 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:27:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] MAG rotation - Will it take place next week .. ? In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> Message-ID: <13BD50A6-A0B7-46A3-8E20-FB35103604EE@privaterra.org> In regards to the renewed MAG, UNDESA's letter from Dec 2011 does mention what will happen if the MAG isn't selected by next week... http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/component/content/article/926-mag-renewal- ... It should be noted that plans are underway to have the next Open Consultation and MAG Meeting take place on 14 - 16 February 2011. In the event that the renewed MAG is not on board by then, the current MAG will convene at this time and the renewed MAG will convene in May..... Thus the question is - have existing MAG members been notified that they need to attend the meeting next week...? regards Robert On 2012-02-08, at 3:13 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 11:48:59 on Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Avri Doria writes >> Also, has anyone gotten a clue yet on whether IGF's NY UN parent plans >> to release the names of the MAG before Tuesday? It seems like it would >> be good for those people to know. > > I know there have been some previous MAG-rotations where new members were only given a couple of weeks to get to their first meeting, but is this February one even expecting to have been rotated? > > And while we are talking about such things, any news on replacements for Nitin and Markus, or who is chairing this next meeting? > -- > 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 avri at acm.org Wed Feb 8 16:30:19 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:30:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Feb 2012 Geneva meetings In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> Message-ID: <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> On 8 Feb 2012, at 15:13, Roland Perry wrote: > And while we are talking about such things, any news on replacements for Nitin and Markus, or who is chairing this next meeting? I am sure we will kept in suspense on this issue, but I bet there will be a chair of some sort and there will a secretariat. In terms of secretariat, I am among those who is quite comfortable with Chengetai retaining the coordinating secretariat spot. He did an excellent job last year, and from what I hear from the reports of the CSTD WG meetings he is doing quite well with that too. In terms of chair, after Nitin and Alice, who would want be the next act? Hard acts to follow. I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in flux. They seem to take turns having to deal with the IGF. 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Feb 8 16:59:53 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:59:53 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Feb 2012 Geneva meetings References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Avri: I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in flux. Wolfgang: The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 8 22:34:31 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:34:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] The standards about the RPKI are out In-Reply-To: References: <20120205170955.GA12463@sources.org> <60C4DDEA-CAA2-420F-888F-F82631D36CA9@acm.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD209DEEF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > The author's contention has been overtaken by events, in that one of the > IETF RPKI drafts specifically addresses how parties that want to use > RPKI should be able to control their reliance on any given trust anchor > and be able to establish their own local rules for what information to > utilize. The proposed RPKI capability is on the IETF Standards Track [Milton L Mueller] It might be more accurate to say that the authors' (plural) contentions caused certain events. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 8 22:58:07 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:58:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] The standards about the RPKI are out In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD209DEEF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20120205170955.GA12463@sources.org> <60C4DDEA-CAA2-420F-888F-F82631D36CA9@acm.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD209DEEF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <01FA8D8A-AA00-46D8-AB27-DE09BF5A94C0@arin.net> On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> The author's contention has been overtaken by events, in that one of the >> IETF RPKI drafts specifically addresses how parties that want to use >> RPKI should be able to control their reliance on any given trust anchor >> and be able to establish their own local rules for what information to >> utilize. The proposed RPKI capability is on the IETF Standards Track > > [Milton L Mueller] > > It might be more accurate to say that the authors' (plural) contentions caused certain events. Indeed, informed multi-stakeholder discourse can influence the structure and operation of Internet infrastructure. This is a design feature (as opposed to defect) of our present system of Internet instituions. /John -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 9 03:47:14 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:47:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] MAG rotation - Will it take place next week .. ? In-Reply-To: <13BD50A6-A0B7-46A3-8E20-FB35103604EE@privaterra.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <13BD50A6-A0B7-46A3-8E20-FB35103604EE@privaterra.org> Message-ID: In message <13BD50A6-A0B7-46A3-8E20-FB35103604EE at privaterra.org>, at 15:27:26 on Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra writes >Thus the question is - have existing MAG members been notified that they >need to attend the meeting next week...? They need more than a week's notice, to make travel arrangements, seeking funding etc. And 2/3 of the current MAG would suddenly find themselves "no longer required", although if there was a new chair he might select some to be special advisers. On reconsideration, it was probably never a possibility that the new MAG could be chosen, confirmed and convened between 31st Jan and 14th Feb. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 9 05:32:41 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:02:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google removes offensive webpages as ordered by Indian court,(Xinhua) In-Reply-To: References: <4F317754.6030608@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F33A0C9.2090009@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 08 February 2012 01:51 PM, William Drake wrote: > And in a similar IBSA vein… > > Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/07/brazil_twitter/ > > Brazil sues Twitter over police checkpoint tweets > Threatens $290k fine… daily > > Internet governance begins at home, but I guess a United Nations > Committee for Internet-Related Policies with a mandate to "facilitate > negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on > Internet-related public policies" could help with the development of > complementary/reinforcing global standards… Why would one want to forget that various global human rights instruments are internationally negotiated agreements too, which were then followed by UN summits (with their negotiated texts) on various global issues of greatest importance... And our beloved IGF is also the product of one such Summit and its negotiated text...... What is so special about the new context that we need to, /ipso facto/, look down upon such global agreements? Or this an expression of the post-democratic sentiment that is so much prelevant both in technical governance spaces and among neolibs, their cross, in my understanding, being the most potent political problem which we face today. It is also important to note who makes the global law in absence of international agreements in the new information society spaces - the digital mega-corporations and the richest nations.... While we know there are problems on both sides, one has to pick ones choice. As famously said, in politics inaction itself is a significant choice. (BTW, notices to google for taking down content has been rising at a similar rate from Northern countries as from Southern.) So, while noting the bad blood in IBSA vein, will also be good to take note of what happens in the OECD's vein. The way a new global order is being shaped, right now in front of our eyes, with illicit IP rights and illicit forms of their enforcement at its base. Spaces for international agreements can certainly provide a countervailing force to these very problematic developments. At the same time, international agreements can also be useful to limit arbitrary measures of content control by agreements on some basic standard and procedures . After all, an international agreement cannot be sealed by IBSA or China alone, it will need all the good hearted countries of the North to sign it as well. parminder > > Bill > > > On Feb 7, 2012, at 8:11 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> >> Google removes offensive webpages as ordered by Indian court >> >> >> (Xinhua ) >> >> >> 15:17, February 07, 2012 >> >> >> >> NEW DELHI, Feb. 7 (Xinhua) -- The U.S.-based search giant Google has >> told a trial court in the Indian capital that it has removed certain >> offensive webpages from the web in compliance with the court's order, >> local media reported Tuesday. >> >> Google India informed the court of additional civil judge Praveen >> Singh that as per its directions, the search giant has removed the >> contents, the daily The Times of India reported. >> >> The court had last December directed Google and 21 other websites, >> many foreign-based, to remove all the objectionable content in the >> form of photographs, videos or texts which might hurt religious >> sentiments. >> >> Meanwhile, Facebook India told the court that it does not control or >> operate the servers that host the website available at >> www.facebook.com, which are located in the United States. >> >> In fact, the court's order was in the wake of a civil case filed by a >> man who sought removal of "anti-religious" or "anti- social" content >> in the form of photographs, videos or texts which might hurt >> religious sentiments. >> >> While Facebook and Google India filed their compliance reports, >> Yahoo! and Microsoft filed applications for deletion of their names >> from the civil complaint stating that there was no allegation against >> them of webcasting any objectionable content, the report said. >> >> After the hearing, the court directed the accused to file compliance >> report within 15 days from the date of the order while fixing the >> matter for further arguments on March 1. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 9 06:15:32 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:15:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> Hi I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have written to the MAG list. * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the Vice Minister from Azerbaijan * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting per Sha's letter. * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would be Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai Mr. Bajwa, Fouad Ms. Betancourt, Valeria Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette Ms. Park, Y. J. Ms. Primo, Natasha Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza Ms. Selaimen, Graciela Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. It's a fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It would be helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible to ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. Best, Bill On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Avri: > > I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in flux. > > Wolfgang: > > The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 06:51:27 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:51:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, I will be there, arriving on the weekend, but we may need to ask senior MAG members here whether it is possible to designate someone else in their absence. This might also be a question to ask Chengetai and after confirmation from him, a proxy attendance process can be carried out in the event that it requires an email to be sent to the secretariat in advance or whatever the modus-operandi is. A question for senior MAG members is that can a current MAG member appoint someone on his/her behalf to be present in the MAG meeting? Also, can we have observers participate with full speaking/intervention rights? -- Foo On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have written to the MAG list. > > * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet > > * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the Vice Minister from Azerbaijan > > * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting per Sha's letter. > > * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November > > So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would be > > Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > Mr. Bajwa, Fouad > Ms. Betancourt, Valeria > Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette > Ms. Park, Y. J. > Ms. Primo, Natasha > Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza > Ms. Selaimen, Graciela > > Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site.   It's a fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance.  It would be helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here.  And on the assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible to ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting silently.  Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> Avri: >> >> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in flux. >> >> Wolfgang: >> >> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 anriette at apc.org Thu Feb 9 06:54:13 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:54:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> Dear Bill Please note that Natasha Primo resigned from the MAG in 2010. Not sure why this has not yet been recorded. Valeria will not be able to attend, unfortunately. I am not sure about Graciela.. but when we last talk it was also not going to be possible for her. But she can confirm. Best Anriette On 09/02/12 13:15, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have written to the MAG list. > > * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet > > * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the Vice Minister from Azerbaijan > > * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting per Sha's letter. > > * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November > > So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would be > > Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > Mr. Bajwa, Fouad > Ms. Betancourt, Valeria > Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette > Ms. Park, Y. J. > Ms. Primo, Natasha > Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza > Ms. Selaimen, Graciela > > Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. It's a fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It would be helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible to ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> Avri: >> >> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in flux. >> >> Wolfgang: >> >> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 9 07:13:28 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:13:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> Message-ID: <8364631B-B04D-4C86-B71A-C34984960CBE@uzh.ch> Hi On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I will be there, arriving on the weekend, but we may need to ask > senior MAG members here whether it is possible to designate someone > else in their absence. By "senior" do you mean "current"? Or do you see some sort of hierarchy here? In any event, I'd hope they would want CS to be represented, rather than that "their" slots be kept empty. On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Please note that Natasha Primo resigned from the MAG in 2010. Not sure > why this has not yet been recorded. Now that you mention it, didn't Jeanette also say she didn't want to be involved anymore? She can correct me… > > Valeria will not be able to attend, unfortunately. > > I am not sure about Graciela.. but when we last talk it was also not > going to be possible for her. But she can confirm. So that would be 3 or 8 slots empty. If Jeanette and YJ don't come it's 5 of 8 empty. Unless I'm misremembering, only Fouad's said yes here, although Qusai, and Katitza usually make it…. Clearly something has to be done if CS is to be properly represented in the discussion. I would think the easiest path would be to ask the chair to let observers talk. But in the event he regards that as too much of a free for all, alternates could be an alternative. Either way, would it makes sense for the IGC to send Chengetai a message saying CS will not be fully represented and asking him to pass to the chair our suggestion of these two options? Or is it better to spring it on him Wednesday morning and hope for an instant affirmative reaction? Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 9 07:35:20 2012 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:35:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F33BD88.5020901@wzb.eu> Hi all, I have resigned too and made this known around the time Sha announced the last extension of the MAG. jeanette Am 09.02.2012 12:54, schrieb Anriette Esterhuysen: > Dear Bill > > Please note that Natasha Primo resigned from the MAG in 2010. Not sure > why this has not yet been recorded. > > Valeria will not be able to attend, unfortunately. > > I am not sure about Graciela.. but when we last talk it was also not > going to be possible for her. But she can confirm. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > On 09/02/12 13:15, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have written to the MAG list. >> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet >> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the Vice Minister from Azerbaijan >> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting per Sha's letter. >> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November >> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would be >> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette >> Ms. Park, Y. J. >> Ms. Primo, Natasha >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela >> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. It's a fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It would be helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible to ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> Avri: >>> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in flux. >>> >>> Wolfgang: >>> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 07:40:06 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:40:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <8364631B-B04D-4C86-B71A-C34984960CBE@uzh.ch> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> <8364631B-B04D-4C86-B71A-C34984960CBE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Dear Bill: I will be in Geneva for the Open consutations and MAG Meeting. I will arive on the 13thFeb. If there is a plan for CS members to meet and discuss matters related to the open consultations, please inform me. Looking forward to see you all in Geneva, Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > I will be there, arriving on the weekend, but we may need to ask > senior MAG members here whether it is possible to designate someone > else in their absence. > > > By "senior" do you mean "current"? Or do you see some sort of hierarchy > here? In any event, I'd hope they would want CS to be represented, rather > than that "their" slots be kept empty. > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Please note that Natasha Primo resigned from the MAG in 2010. Not sure > why this has not yet been recorded. > > > Now that you mention it, didn't Jeanette also say she didn't want to be > involved anymore? She can correct me… > > > Valeria will not be able to attend, unfortunately. > > I am not sure about Graciela.. but when we last talk it was also not > going to be possible for her. But she can confirm. > > > So that would be 3 or 8 slots empty. If Jeanette and YJ don't come it's 5 > of 8 empty. Unless I'm misremembering, only Fouad's said yes here, > although Qusai, and Katitza usually make it…. > > Clearly something has to be done if CS is to be properly represented in > the discussion. I would think the easiest path would be to ask the chair > to let observers talk. But in the event he regards that as too much of a > free for all, alternates could be an alternative. Either way, would it > makes sense for the IGC to send Chengetai a message saying CS will not be > fully represented and asking him to pass to the chair our suggestion of > these two options? Or is it better to spring it on him Wednesday morning > and hope for an instant affirmative reaction? > > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Thu Feb 9 08:04:28 2012 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:04:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] CFP: Second International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA2012) Message-ID: <00fe01cce72b$5b00a280$1101e780$@unimi.it> [Please accept our apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] ********************************** SIMPDA 2012 ********************************** -- Second International Symposium on Data-driven Process Discovery and Analysis -- IFIP Working Groups 2.6 and 2.12/12.4 18-20 June, 2012 - Campione d’Italia, Italy --WWW----WWW----WWW-- http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/SIMPDA2012/ --WWW----WWW----WWW-- **************************************************************************** *** >> About SIMPDA With the increasing automation of business processes, growing amounts of process data become available. This opens new research opportunities for business process data analysis, mining and modeling. The aim of the IFIP 2.6 - 2.12 International Symposium on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis is to offer a forum where researchers from different communities and the industry can share their insight in this hot new field. The symposium will feature a number of keynotes illustrating new approaches, shorter presentations on recent research, a competitive PhD seminar, and selected research and industrial demonstrations. All this in the charming setting of Campione d’Italia, the Italian enclave surrounded by Swiss territory, on the shores of Lake Lugano. SIMPDA 2012 is jointly conducted with IEEE DEST-CEE 2012 (IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystem Technologies and Complex Environment Engineering http://sesar.dti.unimi.it/DEST2012/). This acknowledges the key role of business process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis for Digital Ecosystems. >> Important Dates Submission of Full Papers: 15 April 2012 Submission of PhD Research Plans: 15 April 2012 Notification of Acceptance: 15 May 2012 Submission of Camera Ready Papers: 21 May 2012 >> Call for Papers SIMPDA 2012 offers a unique opportunity to present new approaches and research results to researchers and practitioners working in business process data modeling, representation and privacy-aware analysis. Full papers must not exceed 15 pages. Short papers are limited to at most 4 pages. All papers must be original contributions, not previously published or under review for publication elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English. Accepted papers will be published in a pre-proceedings volume with an ISBN. The authors of the accepted papers will be invited to submit extended articles to a post-symposium proceedings volume, which will be published in the LNBIP series (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, http://www.springer.com/series/7911), scheduled for late 2012. >> Keynote Speakers Marlon Dumas - University of Tartu Ronal Maier - University of Innsbruck Jan Mendling - Vienna University of Economics Manfred Hauswirth - National University of Ireland >> Call for PhD Research Plans The SIMPDA PhD Seminar is a workshop for Ph.D. students from all over the world. The goal of the Seminar is to help students with their thesis and research plans by providing feedback and general advice on how to use their research results. Students interested in participating in the Seminar should submit an extended abstract describing their research. Submissions can relate to any aspect of Process Data: technical advances, usage and impact studies, policy analyses, social and institutional implications, theoretical contributions, interaction and design advances, innovative applications, and social implications. Research plans should be at most of 4 page long and should be organized following the following structure: - Abstract: summarizes, in 5 line, the research aims and significance. - Research Question: defines what will be accomplished by eliciting the relevant the research questions - Background: defines the background knowledge providing the 5 most relevant references (papers or books). - Significance: explains the relevance of the general topic and of the specific contribution. - Research design and methods: describes and motivates the method adopted focusing on: assumptions, solutions, data sources, validation of results, limitations of the approach. - Research stage: describes what the student has done so far. A Doctoral Award will be given by the SIMPDA PhD Award Committee to the best research plan submitted. >> Call for Demonstrations and Posters Demonstrations showcase innovative technology and applications, allowing for sharing research work directly with colleagues in a high-visibility setting. Demonstration proposals should consist of a title, an extended abstract, and contact information for the authors, and should not exceed 2 pages. Posters allow the presentation of late-breaking results in an informal, interactive manner. Poster proposals should consist of a title, an extended abstract, contact information for the authors, and should not exceed 2 pages. Accepted demonstrations and posters will be presented at the symposium. Abstracts will appear in the proceedings. --- ORGANIZATION --- >> GENERAL CHAIRS Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Philippe Coudre-Mauroux, University of Fribourg, Switzerland Dragan Gasevic, Athabasca University, Canada >> ADVISORY BOARD Tharam Dillon, DEBII, Curtin University, Australia Ernesto Damiani, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Moataz A. Ahmed, KFUPM, Saudi Arabia Elizabeth Chang, DEBII, Curtin University, Australia Erich Neuhold, University of Vienna, Austria Karl Aberer, EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland >> DEMONSTRATION AND SHOWCASE COMMITTEE Elizabeth Chang, DEBII, Curtin University, Australia Christian Guetl, Graz University of Technology, Austria PUBLICITY CHAIR Matthew Smith, Leibniz University Hannover, Germany >> PhD. AWARD COMMITTEE Gregorio Piccoli, Zucchetti spa, Italy Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Farookh Hussain, Curtin University, Perth, Australia >> WEB CHAIR Fulvio Frati, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy --- ACCOMMODATION AND VENUE --- Campione d'Italia is a town of about 2300 inhabitants set on the southeastern shore of Lake Lugano on a narrow strip of Italian land surrounded by Switzerland that boasts remarkable historical and artistic traditions. Campione d'Italia, is one of five European exclaves. All conference activities will take place in the Municipal Casino of Campione. More info on: sesar.dti.unimi.it/SIMPDA2012 www.campioneitalia.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 9 08:04:37 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:04:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <0ku0ruFlR8MPFAzJ@internetpolicyagency.com> at 12:51:27 on Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Fouad Bajwa writes > can a current MAG member >appoint someone on his/her behalf to be present in the MAG meeting? Because the members serve in their personal capacity, it's very likely that substitutes aren't allowed. This is quite normal. Amongst other reasons, it could upset gender and geographic diversity. -- 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Feb 9 08:17:30 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:17:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Geneva Feb 2012 Consultation / A quick survey Message-ID: <5532FDCA-EAA1-417D-88C9-8671E20EEC2A@privaterra.org> To help plan meetings and assess the level of participation at next week's meeting, I've created a short online survey to poll those who will be attending . Please feel visit the URL below and complete the form. http://goo.gl/3SKDM I'll summarize the details every night and post the results (minus the personal details) on the list . regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 yjpark21 at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 09:18:20 2012 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 23:18:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill and all, Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil society in this process. I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey. However, I cannot... It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical diversity/gender issues. Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my difficulty with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to delegate my MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a responsible manner, it would be appreciated. My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. Thanks in advance, YJ On 2/9/12, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have written > to the MAG list. > > * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet > > * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the Vice > Minister from Azerbaijan > > * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting per > Sha's letter. > > * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November > > So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would be > > Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > Mr. Bajwa, Fouad > Ms. Betancourt, Valeria > Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette > Ms. Park, Y. J. > Ms. Primo, Natasha > Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza > Ms. Selaimen, Graciela > > Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. It's a > fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It would be > helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the > assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible to > ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting > silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to > designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> Avri: >> >> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or >> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in >> flux. >> >> Wolfgang: >> >> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha >> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next >> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in >> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship >> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected >> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be >> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad >> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will >> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 09:18:56 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:18:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <8364631B-B04D-4C86-B71A-C34984960CBE@uzh.ch> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> <8364631B-B04D-4C86-B71A-C34984960CBE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, By senior I meant any MAG member other than us (2009) ones that may have witnessed such a request being made for someone else to stand in during that MAG member's absence. Really, no hierarchy or as such, senior refers to those before myself or with more MAG experience, I somehow can't figure out why that is sometimes felt in my words ;o) probably poor vocabulary on my part! -- Fouad On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:13 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > I will be there, arriving on the weekend, but we may need to ask > senior MAG members here whether it is possible to designate someone > else in their absence. > > > By "senior" do you mean "current"?  Or do you see some sort of hierarchy > here?  In any event, I'd hope they would want CS to be represented, rather > than that "their" slots be kept empty. > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Please note that Natasha Primo resigned from the MAG in 2010. Not sure > why this has not yet been recorded. > > > Now that you mention it, didn't Jeanette also say she didn't want to be > involved anymore?  She can correct me… > > > Valeria will not be able to attend, unfortunately. > > I am not sure about Graciela.. but when we last talk it was also not > going to be possible for her. But she can confirm. > > > So that would be 3 or 8 slots empty.  If Jeanette and YJ don't come it's 5 > of 8 empty.  Unless I'm misremembering, only Fouad's said yes here, > although Qusai, and Katitza usually make it…. > > Clearly something has to be done if CS is to be properly represented in the > discussion.  I would think the easiest path would be to ask the chair to let > observers talk.  But in the event he regards that as too much of a free for > all, alternates could be an alternative.  Either way, would it makes sense > for the IGC to send Chengetai a message saying CS will not be fully > represented and asking him to pass to the chair our suggestion of these two > options?  Or is it better to spring it on him Wednesday morning and hope for > an instant affirmative reaction? > > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 9 10:00:48 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:00:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> Hi YJ Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend. Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular people who could stand in for the absent members at this point. Wouldn't it be better for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the Azeri VM a letter expressing concern about CS' underrepresentation and asking that remedial action be allowed, options x and y? As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all women, BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic diversity than letting those who'll be here participate under whatever rubric. BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to each stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a whole. Best Bill On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote: > Hi Bill and all, > > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil society > in this process. > I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey. > However, I cannot... > > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical > diversity/gender issues. > > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my difficulty > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to delegate my > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. > > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a responsible > manner, it would be appreciated. > > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. > > Thanks in advance, > YJ > > > On 2/9/12, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have written >> to the MAG list. >> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet >> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the Vice >> Minister from Azerbaijan >> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting per >> Sha's letter. >> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November >> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would be >> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette >> Ms. Park, Y. J. >> Ms. Primo, Natasha >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela >> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. It's a >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It would be >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible to >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting >> silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> Avri: >>> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in >>> flux. >>> >>> Wolfgang: >>> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your 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 Thu Feb 9 10:08:27 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:08:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Well informed sources have told CENTR that this year's IGF in Baku will take place between 6-9 Nov 2012 Message-ID: <947BFA6A-BE03-401F-AAD2-496F283F4C81@privaterra.org> Thought I should share the following tweet that was just posted by CIRA regarding the 2012 IGF IGF in Baku... CIRANEWS: RT @centrnews: Well informed sources have told CENTR that this year's IGF in Baku will take place between 6-9 Nov 2012 Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/CIRANEWS/statuses/167623451467710464 regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 9 11:15:46 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:15:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] MAG rotation - Will it take place next week .. ? In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <13BD50A6-A0B7-46A3-8E20-FB35103604EE@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <4F33F132.5010709@eff.org> Hi folk, It seems the current MAG will attend the meeting since we haven't heard anything about new MAG but I have asked that question to the Secretariat cc all MAGs members. I will report back. Unfortunately, myself won't be able to go on this occasion. I will be able to join remotely on 15-16 but not on the 14. (We have a retreat were no internet is allowed). On 2/9/12 12:47 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <13BD50A6-A0B7-46A3-8E20-FB35103604EE at privaterra.org>, at > 15:27:26 on Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > writes >> Thus the question is - have existing MAG members been notified that they >> need to attend the meeting next week...? > > They need more than a week's notice, to make travel arrangements, > seeking funding etc. And 2/3 of the current MAG would suddenly find > themselves "no longer required", although if there was a new chair he > might select some to be special advisers. > > On reconsideration, it was probably never a possibility that the new > MAG could be chosen, confirmed and convened between 31st Jan and 14th > Feb. -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 9 11:25:15 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:25:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F33F36B.4030706@eff.org> Hi folks, I asked the same question to Chengetai cc-ing the MAG members. See below. Unfortunately, it is not possible for me to go on this opportunity due to an imperative meeting I can't cancel—there is an internal EFF retreat with the whole organization on the 13-14 that all stuff must go—scheduled with several months in advance). I'm available to join remotely on the 15. from Chengetai: The draft agenda for the Open Consultations and MAG meetings are available on the IGF Website. The MAG meeting agenda may be reviewed on the basis of the discussions of the Open Consultations. As indicated in Under-Secretary-General Sha Zukang's message on the renewal of the MAG, the current MAG will convene for the February meeting with the renewed MAG convening in May. The meetings will be chaired by Mr. Elmir Valizadeh, Deputy Minister of Communications& Information Technologies from this year's host country. On 2/9/12 3:54 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Bill > > Please note that Natasha Primo resigned from the MAG in 2010. Not sure > why this has not yet been recorded. > > Valeria will not be able to attend, unfortunately. > > I am not sure about Graciela.. but when we last talk it was also not > going to be possible for her. But she can confirm. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > On 09/02/12 13:15, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have written to the MAG list. >> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet >> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the Vice Minister from Azerbaijan >> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting per Sha's letter. >> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November >> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would be >> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette >> Ms. Park, Y. J. >> Ms. Primo, Natasha >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela >> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. It's a fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It would be helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible to ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> Avri: >>> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in flux. >>> >>> Wolfgang: >>> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 9 11:27:25 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:27:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <8364631B-B04D-4C86-B71A-C34984960CBE@uzh.ch> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> <8364631B-B04D-4C86-B71A-C34984960CBE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4F33F3ED.5080701@eff.org> I plan to join remotely, and hopefully, I can join also on the 14 while everyone is sleeping in the retreat. If not, I will send my statement to be read! On 2/9/12 4:13 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> I will be there, arriving on the weekend, but we may need to ask >> senior MAG members here whether it is possible to designate someone >> else in their absence. > > By "senior" do you mean "current"? Or do you see some sort of > hierarchy here? In any event, I'd hope they would want CS to be > represented, rather than that "their" slots be kept empty. > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Please note that Natasha Primo resigned from the MAG in 2010. Not sure >> why this has not yet been recorded. > > Now that you mention it, didn't Jeanette also say she didn't want to > be involved anymore? She can correct me… >> >> Valeria will not be able to attend, unfortunately. >> >> I am not sure about Graciela.. but when we last talk it was also not >> going to be possible for her. But she can confirm. > > So that would be 3 or 8 slots empty. If Jeanette and YJ don't come > it's 5 of 8 empty. Unless I'm misremembering, only Fouad's said yes > here, although Qusai, and Katitza usually make it…. > > Clearly something has to be done if CS is to be properly represented > in the discussion. I would think the easiest path would be to ask the > chair to let observers talk. But in the event he regards that as too > much of a free for all, alternates could be an alternative. Either > way, would it makes sense for the IGC to send Chengetai a message > saying CS will not be fully represented and asking him to pass to the > chair our suggestion of these two options? Or is it better to spring > it on him Wednesday morning and hope for an instant affirmative reaction? > > Bill -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 11:36:26 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:36:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] MAG rotation - Will it take place next week .. ? In-Reply-To: <4F33F132.5010709@eff.org> Message-ID: <176F721F876A411E97578A8642046346@UserVAIO> As an IGC nominee for the MAG I'll try to attend remotely although my connectivity (I'll be in Bangladesh helping to develop an ICT4D project) may be somewhat limited. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Katitza Rodriguez Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] MAG rotation - Will it take place next week .. ? Hi folk, It seems the current MAG will attend the meeting since we haven't heard anything about new MAG but I have asked that question to the Secretariat cc all MAGs members. I will report back. Unfortunately, myself won't be able to go on this occasion. I will be able to join remotely on 15-16 but not on the 14. (We have a retreat were no internet is allowed). On 2/9/12 12:47 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <13BD50A6-A0B7-46A3-8E20-FB35103604EE at privaterra.org>, at > 15:27:26 on Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > writes >> Thus the question is - have existing MAG members been notified that >> they need to attend the meeting next week...? > > They need more than a week's notice, to make travel arrangements, > seeking funding etc. And 2/3 of the current MAG would suddenly find > themselves "no longer required", although if there was a new chair he > might select some to be special advisers. > > On reconsideration, it was probably never a possibility that the new > MAG could be chosen, confirmed and convened between 31st Jan and 14th > Feb. -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 9 12:04:28 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 17:04:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> Message-ID: In message <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA at uzh.ch>, at 16:00:48 on Thu, 9 Feb 2012, William Drake writes >As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all women, >BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic diversity than >letting those who'll be here participate under whatever rubric. For one meeting in isolation it's often tempting to suggest that a few carefully chosen replacements is better than empty seats, but for meetings like this, in my experience a long term culture of substitution reduces productivity as well as diversity. -- 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 joy at apc.org Thu Feb 9 19:50:56 2012 From: joy at apc.org (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:50:56 +1300 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council Panel on FX and the Internet Message-ID: <008c01cce78e$0ee59140$2cb0b3c0$@apc.org> Dear colleagues, This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression's annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. Kind regards Joy Liddicoat Project Coordinator Internet Rights are Human Rights www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yjpark21 at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 20:28:58 2012 From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:28:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi YJ > > Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend. > > Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular people who > could stand in for the absent members at this point. Wouldn't it be better > for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the Azeri VM a letter expressing > concern about CS' underrepresentation and asking that remedial action be > allowed, options x and y? > It is worth noticing many CS folks would not be able to attend the MAG meeting with many reasons. If our IGC coordintors have enough resources to address this issue with more institutional basis to IGF secretariat, I believe it would serve us better. Thank you for your suggestion! > > As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all women, > BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic diversity than > letting those who'll be here participate under whatever rubric. > > BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to each > stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a whole. > I was not aware that the principle of gender/geographical diversity was applied to MAG as a whole not to each stakeholder. As pointed out here, I support your proposal that such principle should be widely implemented to each stakeholder group's MAG selection process as well. Thanks, YJ > > Best > > Bill > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote: > > > Hi Bill and all, > > > > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil society > > in this process. > > I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the > > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey. > > However, I cannot... > > > > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate > > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As > > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical > > diversity/gender issues. > > > > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my difficulty > > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to delegate my > > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. > > > > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a responsible > > manner, it would be appreciated. > > > > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > YJ > > > > > > On 2/9/12, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have > written > >> to the MAG list. > >> > >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet > >> > >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the > Vice > >> Minister from Azerbaijan > >> > >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting > per > >> Sha's letter. > >> > >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November > >> > >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would > be > >> > >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad > >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria > >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette > >> Ms. Park, Y. J. > >> Ms. Primo, Natasha > >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza > >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela > >> > >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. > It's a > >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It would be > >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the > >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible > to > >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting > >> silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to > >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> > >>> Avri: > >>> > >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. > Or > >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in > >>> flux. > >>> > >>> Wolfgang: > >>> > >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will > Sha > >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the > next > >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms > ends in > >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship > >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was > reelected > >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? > Be > >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad > >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will > >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 10 00:47:28 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:17:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> Hi All We have reached a rather unacceptable, and I should say, shameful, situation vis a vis civil society participaiton in MAG whereby it is now a regular thing that CS participation is not funded. Such multistakeholderism (MSism) should be rejected out of hand. It fuels and justifies the doubts expressed by those who think that MSism of IG is just a ploy to get more seats on the table for the already powerful. CS cannot be represented just by people who can spend their own resources or live in nearby places of the North. We as CS must call this bluff, even if we lose some prized positions. We can then at least fight from the outside, as CS has often/ largely done till we get an honourable and acceptable arrangement to (also) participate from the inside. I think we should just tell them, either fund CS participation at least in the core committees etc of the IGF (which is generally done for all the UN system) or we are not interested to lend 'them' the credibility of CS participation in the system. On a connected note, it bothers me a lot that inside the WG on Improvements to the IGF, not many of us are too keen to push for ensuring a regular UN budget for the IGF/ MAG etc. (Those old ghostly notions of UN will take over the IGF, as if corporate and other partisan interested party funds controlling it is better!) It also bothers me that this issue, and in fact, in general, issues of IGF improvements seem not to bother many of us enough to bring on a spirited discussion, and putting up strong clear positions that defend the interests of the marginalised, whom we should most centrally be representing If this is multistakeholderism, then its critics are right, I think - a cover for greater corporate presence in political spaces.... parminder On Friday 10 February 2012 06:58 AM, YJ Park wrote: > Hi Bill, > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi YJ > > Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend. > > Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular people > who could stand in for the absent members at this point. Wouldn't > it be better for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the Azeri VM > a letter expressing concern about CS' underrepresentation and > asking that remedial action be allowed, options x and y? > > It is worth noticing many CS folks would not be able to attend the MAG > meeting with many reasons. If our IGC coordintors have enough > resources to address this issue with more institutional basis to IGF > secretariat, I believe it would serve us better. Thank you for your > suggestion! > > > As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all > women, BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic > diversity than letting those who'll be here participate under > whatever rubric. > > BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to > each stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a whole. > > I was not aware that the principle of gender/geographical diversity > was applied to MAG as a whole not to each stakeholder. As pointed out > here, I support your proposal that such principle should > be widely implemented to each stakeholder group's MAG selection > process as well. > Thanks, > YJ > > > Best > > Bill > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote: > > > Hi Bill and all, > > > > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil > society > > in this process. > > I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the > > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey. > > However, I cannot... > > > > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate > > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As > > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical > > diversity/gender issues. > > > > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my difficulty > > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to > delegate my > > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. > > > > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a responsible > > manner, it would be appreciated. > > > > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > YJ > > > > > > On 2/9/12, William Drake > wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will > have written > >> to the MAG list. > >> > >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet > >> > >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the > host, the Vice > >> Minister from Azerbaijan > >> > >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this > meeting per > >> Sha's letter. > >> > >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November > >> > >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil > society would be > >> > >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad > >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria > >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette > >> Ms. Park, Y. J. > >> Ms. Primo, Natasha > >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza > >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela > >> > >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF > site. It's a > >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It > would be > >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the > >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be > sensible to > >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting > >> silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to > be able to > >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> > >>> Avri: > >>> > >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from > Azerbaijan. Or > >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all > remains in > >>> flux. > >>> > >>> Wolfgang: > >>> > >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question > is: Will Sha > >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands > of the next > >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His > terms ends in > >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His > relationship > >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM > was reelected > >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does > it mean? Be > >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is > not so bad > >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and > it will > >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Feb 10 01:08:09 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:08:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all. sorry to join this important discussion a little late. I will arrive on 13th late at night. I have proposed to have a brief meeting on 14th morning, say 9 am, at Palais de Nation, cafe. We should also perhaps meet again on 14th evening after the first day. It will be best if we could have remote participation access, but making it in the evening is rather challenging I am afraid. As one of co-coordinators, I agree that IGC should send a letter to MAG/Chengetai, expressing our concerns and making requests: If anyone could volunteer to write the draft very shortly, I would appreciate it as I am completely tied up before my long trip to Geneva (10 days). It is best, in my opinion, to ask them (Chair) to allow any observer to talk in the MAG meeting. Without making proxy or alternate. Parminder is right that MSH should be supported financially, to have funding support for core participation. I am not sure, though, that walking out is the best position, but if this situation continues, we may have to consider that. Many thanks, izumi 2012/2/10 parminder : > Hi All > > We have reached a rather unacceptable, and I should say, shameful, situation > vis a vis civil society participaiton in MAG whereby it is now a regular > thing that CS participation is not funded. Such multistakeholderism (MSism) > should be rejected out of hand. It fuels and justifies the doubts expressed > by those who think that MSism of IG is just a ploy to get more seats on the > table for the already powerful. CS cannot be represented just by people who > can spend their own resources or live in nearby places of the North. We as > CS must call this bluff, even if we lose some prized positions. We can then > at least fight from the outside, as CS has often/ largely done till we get > an honourable and acceptable arrangement to (also) participate from the > inside. > > I think we should just tell them, either fund CS participation at least in > the core committees etc of the IGF (which is generally done for all the UN > system) or we are not interested to lend 'them' the credibility of CS > participation in the system. > > On a connected note, it bothers me a lot that inside the WG on Improvements > to the IGF, not many of us are too keen to push for ensuring a regular UN > budget for the IGF/ MAG etc. (Those old ghostly notions of UN will take over > the IGF, as if corporate and other partisan interested party funds > controlling it is better!) It also bothers me that this issue, and in fact, > in general, issues of IGF improvements seem not to bother many of us enough > to bring on a spirited discussion, and putting up strong clear positions > that defend the interests of the marginalised, whom we should most centrally > be representing > > If this is multistakeholderism, then its critics are right, I think - a > cover for greater corporate presence in political spaces.... > > parminder > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 06:58 AM, YJ Park wrote: > > Hi Bill, > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, William Drake > wrote: >> >> Hi YJ >> >> Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend. >> >> Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular people who >> could stand in for the absent members at this point.  Wouldn't it be better >> for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the Azeri VM a letter expressing >> concern about CS' underrepresentation and asking that remedial action be >> allowed, options x and y? > > It is worth noticing many CS folks would not be able to attend the MAG > meeting with many reasons. If our IGC coordintors have enough resources to > address this issue with more institutional basis to IGF secretariat, I > believe it would serve us better. Thank you for your suggestion! >> >> >> As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all women, >> BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic diversity than >> letting those who'll be here participate under whatever rubric. >> >> >> BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to each >> stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a whole. > > > I was not aware that the principle of gender/geographical diversity was > applied to MAG as a whole not to each stakeholder. As pointed out here, I > support your proposal that such principle should be widely implemented to > each stakeholder group's MAG selection process as well. > > Thanks, > YJ > >> >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote: >> >> > Hi Bill and all, >> > >> > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil society >> > in this process. >> > I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the >> > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey. >> > However, I cannot... >> > >> > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate >> > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As >> > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical >> > diversity/gender issues. >> > >> > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my difficulty >> > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to delegate my >> > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. >> > >> > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a responsible >> > manner, it would be appreciated. >> > >> > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. >> > >> > Thanks in advance, >> > YJ >> > >> > >> > On 2/9/12, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have >> >> written >> >> to the MAG list. >> >> >> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet >> >> >> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the >> >> Vice >> >> Minister from Azerbaijan >> >> >> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting >> >> per >> >> Sha's letter. >> >> >> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November >> >> >> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would >> >> be >> >> >> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai >> >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad >> >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria >> >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette >> >> Ms. Park, Y. J. >> >> Ms. Primo, Natasha >> >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza >> >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela >> >> >> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. >> >> It's a >> >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance.  It would be >> >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here.  And on the >> >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible >> >> to >> >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting >> >> silently.  Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able >> >> to >> >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >> >> >>> Avri: >> >>> >> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. >> >>> Or >> >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in >> >>> flux. >> >>> >> >>> Wolfgang: >> >>> >> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will >> >>> Sha >> >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the >> >>> next >> >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms >> >>> ends in >> >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship >> >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was >> >>> reelected >> >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? >> >>> Be >> >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so >> >>> bad >> >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will >> >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Feb 9 13:51:32 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:51:32 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA28@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I support the letter but I would send it to Sha Zukang not to the Azeri VC. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Gesendet: Do 09.02.2012 16:00 An: YJ Park Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] Hi YJ Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend. Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular people who could stand in for the absent members at this point. Wouldn't it be better for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the Azeri VM a letter expressing concern about CS' underrepresentation and asking that remedial action be allowed, options x and y? As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all women, BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic diversity than letting those who'll be here participate under whatever rubric. BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to each stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a whole. Best Bill On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote: > Hi Bill and all, > > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil society > in this process. > I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey. > However, I cannot... > > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical > diversity/gender issues. > > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my difficulty > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to delegate my > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. > > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a responsible > manner, it would be appreciated. > > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. > > Thanks in advance, > YJ > > > On 2/9/12, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have written >> to the MAG list. >> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet >> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the Vice >> Minister from Azerbaijan >> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting per >> Sha's letter. >> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November >> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would be >> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette >> Ms. Park, Y. J. >> Ms. Primo, Natasha >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela >> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. It's a >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It would be >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible to >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting >> silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> Avri: >>> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in >>> flux. >>> >>> Wolfgang: >>> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your 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 anriette at apc.org Fri Feb 10 03:26:54 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:26:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> Dear Parminder and all On 10/02/12 07:47, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > We have reached a rather unacceptable, and I should say, shameful, > situation vis a vis civil society participaiton in MAG whereby it is now > a regular thing that CS participation is not funded. Such > multistakeholderism (MSism) should be rejected out of hand. It fuels and > justifies the doubts expressed by those who think that MSism of IG is > just a ploy to get more seats on the table for the already powerful. CS > cannot be represented just by people who can spend their own resources > or live in nearby places of the North. We as CS must call this bluff, > even if we lose some prized positions. We can then at least fight from > the outside, as CS has often/ largely done till we get an honourable and > acceptable arrangement to (also) participate from the inside. I agree with this position in principle, but at the same time 'fighting' from the outside is an extremely risky strategy. If all non-governmental stakeholders were to form a common position on support for participation we would stand a stronger change, but, the other stakeholder groups have more resources, and are by and large better organised. Nevertheless I would like to propose as ask them to do a joint letter with us on the importance of supporting and facilitating effective multi-stakeholder participation. I completely agree with Parminder that we cannot indefinitely continue to give a process credibility when we are not able to participate effectively. Lack of funding for CS participation is a UN-wide issue. APC has had to finance our own participation in other UN spaces as well, such as the Committee for the Advancement of Women and also the Human Rights Council. The UN is in financial difficulties, and civil society participation is one of many areas that are suffering as a result. The difference with the MAG is that it members are appointed by the UNSG and expected to work hard and contribute to making a UN-linked process stronger. The same applies to the CSTD WG. In this instance the UN must take responsibility for making sure that bodies that it constitutes function effectively. > > I think we should just tell them, either fund CS participation at least > in the core committees etc of the IGF (which is generally done for all > the UN system) or we are not interested to lend 'them' the credibility > of CS participation in the system. Agree that we should convey this to the SG as the person that appoints the MAG. > > On a connected note, it bothers me a lot that inside the WG on > Improvements to the IGF, not many of us are too keen to push for > ensuring a regular UN budget for the IGF/ MAG etc. (Those old ghostly > notions of UN will take over the IGF, as if corporate and other partisan > interested party funds controlling it is better!) It also bothers me > that this issue, and in fact, in general, issues of IGF improvements > seem not to bother many of us enough to bring on a spirited discussion, > and putting up strong clear positions that defend the interests of the > marginalised, whom we should most centrally be representing Parminder is correct in that we have not had a common position, even among CS, on UN funding for the IGF/MAG. Most governments, as well as the tech and business communities oppose the idea. Personally I don't think it is realistic, or desirable to have the IGF funded entirely, or mostly from the UN. But I agree strongly with Parminder that there does need to be some regular support from the UN. In part this exists through the in-kind support given to the secretariat. But this is not enough. A few areas of ongoing funding would make a big difference: * MAG functioning and participation - For example, a regular amount made available every year through local UNDP offices to support participation of non-governmental stakeholders who don't have the resources to travel to meetings. * The salary of the executive coordinator, so that there can be continuity and leadership at secretariat level. In one of my inputs to the CSTD WG I had proposed a 30% UN 40% additional (voluntary is their term) funding. But I think only Parminder showed any support for that... it is simply not an idea that business, or governments, or the UN itself is going to support - for various reasons. Here is the text from the chairman's summary which will frame this discussion at the next CSTD WG on IGF Improvements meeting. It is good to note that he included this text, which was submitted by CS. He must be commended for his respect for CS input. "Explore UN general funding for the core structure and functions of the IGF, including improving participation and outreach, in addition to welcoming voluntary private funds." and "Consider a model whereby the SG's office provides (1) in-kind support (2) that this in-kind support is stated clearly (e.g. communications, office space, etc.) and given an estimated dollar value in IGF budgets (3) that some core operational expenditure, e.g. the salary of the Executive Coordinator be funded through the UN." Anriette > > If this is multistakeholderism, then its critics are right, I think - a > cover for greater corporate presence in political spaces.... > > parminder > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 06:58 AM, YJ Park wrote: >> Hi Bill, >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, William Drake > > wrote: >> >> Hi YJ >> >> Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend. >> >> Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular people >> who could stand in for the absent members at this point. Wouldn't >> it be better for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the Azeri VM >> a letter expressing concern about CS' underrepresentation and >> asking that remedial action be allowed, options x and y? >> >> It is worth noticing many CS folks would not be able to attend the MAG >> meeting with many reasons. If our IGC coordintors have enough >> resources to address this issue with more institutional basis to IGF >> secretariat, I believe it would serve us better. Thank you for your >> suggestion! >> >> >> As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all >> women, BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic >> diversity than letting those who'll be here participate under >> whatever rubric. >> >> >> BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to >> each stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a whole. >> >> >> I was not aware that the principle of gender/geographical diversity >> was applied to MAG as a whole not to each stakeholder. As pointed out >> here, I support your proposal that such principle should >> be widely implemented to each stakeholder group's MAG selection >> process as well. >> >> Thanks, >> YJ >> >> >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote: >> >> > Hi Bill and all, >> > >> > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil >> society >> > in this process. >> > I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the >> > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey. >> > However, I cannot... >> > >> > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate >> > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As >> > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical >> > diversity/gender issues. >> > >> > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my difficulty >> > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to >> delegate my >> > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. >> > >> > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a responsible >> > manner, it would be appreciated. >> > >> > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. >> > >> > Thanks in advance, >> > YJ >> > >> > >> > On 2/9/12, William Drake > > wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will >> have written >> >> to the MAG list. >> >> >> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet >> >> >> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the >> host, the Vice >> >> Minister from Azerbaijan >> >> >> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this >> meeting per >> >> Sha's letter. >> >> >> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November >> >> >> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil >> society would be >> >> >> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai >> >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad >> >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria >> >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette >> >> Ms. Park, Y. J. >> >> Ms. Primo, Natasha >> >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza >> >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela >> >> >> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF >> site. It's a >> >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It >> would be >> >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the >> >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be >> sensible to >> >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting >> >> silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to >> be able to >> >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >> >> >>> Avri: >> >>> >> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from >> Azerbaijan. Or >> >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all >> remains in >> >>> flux. >> >>> >> >>> Wolfgang: >> >>> >> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question >> is: Will Sha >> >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands >> of the next >> >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His >> terms ends in >> >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His >> relationship >> >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM >> was reelected >> >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does >> it mean? Be >> >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is >> not so bad >> >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and >> it will >> >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 10 04:03:09 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:03:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi all, We are struggling for financial support for our participation in MAG and I feel that it is also in the various activities in subregional, regional and international. Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. The experience in Africa shows that often the impetus from the CS to the summit of political power that are policy-makers because they are in order. Reduce or erase the presence of SC in the hemicycle of the debates on Internet governance sufficiently demonstrates that the Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda were only dressing. Why have spent so much money to achieve such a disappointment? There is no reason to give up, maybe we can think about other fundraising mechanisms to ensure participation of civil society in the MAG and other ICT activities at the sub regional, regional and international levels. The two processes of phase I and II demonstrated sufficient relevant consultations at national, subregional and regional levels. These are strategies that could yield convincing results in ICT development until now. We are entering a new phase of cybersecurity. And that's just at that moment that CS sees exclude debates. No, why? We have the right to participate in these debates. 2012/2/10 Anriette Esterhuysen > Dear Parminder and all > > On 10/02/12 07:47, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > > > We have reached a rather unacceptable, and I should say, shameful, > > situation vis a vis civil society participaiton in MAG whereby it is now > > a regular thing that CS participation is not funded. Such > > multistakeholderism (MSism) should be rejected out of hand. It fuels and > > justifies the doubts expressed by those who think that MSism of IG is > > just a ploy to get more seats on the table for the already powerful. CS > > cannot be represented just by people who can spend their own resources > > or live in nearby places of the North. We as CS must call this bluff, > > even if we lose some prized positions. We can then at least fight from > > the outside, as CS has often/ largely done till we get an honourable and > > acceptable arrangement to (also) participate from the inside. > > I agree with this position in principle, but at the same time 'fighting' > from the outside is an extremely risky strategy. > > If all non-governmental stakeholders were to form a common position on > support for participation we would stand a stronger change, but, the > other stakeholder groups have more resources, and are by and large > better organised. Nevertheless I would like to propose as ask them to do > a joint letter with us on the importance of supporting and facilitating > effective multi-stakeholder participation. > > I completely agree with Parminder that we cannot indefinitely continue > to give a process credibility when we are not able to participate > effectively. > > Lack of funding for CS participation is a UN-wide issue. APC has had to > finance our own participation in other UN spaces as well, such as the > Committee for the Advancement of Women and also the Human Rights > Council. The UN is in financial difficulties, and civil society > participation is one of many areas that are suffering as a result. > > The difference with the MAG is that it members are appointed by the UNSG > and expected to work hard and contribute to making a UN-linked process > stronger. The same applies to the CSTD WG. In this instance the UN must > take responsibility for making sure that bodies that it constitutes > function effectively. > > > > I think we should just tell them, either fund CS participation at least > > in the core committees etc of the IGF (which is generally done for all > > the UN system) or we are not interested to lend 'them' the credibility > > of CS participation in the system. > > Agree that we should convey this to the SG as the person that appoints > the MAG. > > > > On a connected note, it bothers me a lot that inside the WG on > > Improvements to the IGF, not many of us are too keen to push for > > ensuring a regular UN budget for the IGF/ MAG etc. (Those old ghostly > > notions of UN will take over the IGF, as if corporate and other partisan > > interested party funds controlling it is better!) It also bothers me > > that this issue, and in fact, in general, issues of IGF improvements > > seem not to bother many of us enough to bring on a spirited discussion, > > and putting up strong clear positions that defend the interests of the > > marginalised, whom we should most centrally be representing > > Parminder is correct in that we have not had a common position, even > among CS, on UN funding for the IGF/MAG. Most governments, as well as > the tech and business communities oppose the idea. > > > Personally I don't think it is realistic, or desirable to have the IGF > funded entirely, or mostly from the UN. But I agree strongly with > Parminder that there does need to be some regular support from the UN. > In part this exists through the in-kind support given to the > secretariat. But this is not enough. > > A few areas of ongoing funding would make a big difference: > > * MAG functioning and participation - For example, a regular amount made > available every year through local UNDP offices to support participation > of non-governmental stakeholders who don't have the resources to travel > to meetings. > > * The salary of the executive coordinator, so that there can be > continuity and leadership at secretariat level. > > > In one of my inputs to the CSTD WG I had proposed a 30% UN 40% > additional (voluntary is their term) funding. But I think only Parminder > showed any support for that... it is simply not an idea that business, > or governments, or the UN itself is going to support - for various > reasons. > > Here is the text from the chairman's summary which will frame this > discussion at the next CSTD WG on IGF Improvements meeting. It is good > to note that he included this text, which was submitted by CS. He must > be commended for his respect for CS input. > > "Explore UN general funding for the core structure and functions of the > IGF, including improving participation and outreach, in addition to > welcoming voluntary private funds." > > and > > "Consider a model whereby the SG's office provides (1) in-kind support > (2) that this in-kind support is stated clearly (e.g. communications, > office space, etc.) and given an estimated dollar value in IGF budgets > (3) that some core operational expenditure, e.g. the salary of the > Executive Coordinator be funded through the UN." > > Anriette > > > > > > > If this is multistakeholderism, then its critics are right, I think - a > > cover for greater corporate presence in political spaces.... > > > > parminder > > > > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 06:58 AM, YJ Park wrote: > >> Hi Bill, > >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, William Drake >> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi YJ > >> > >> Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend. > >> > >> Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular people > >> who could stand in for the absent members at this point. Wouldn't > >> it be better for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the Azeri VM > >> a letter expressing concern about CS' underrepresentation and > >> asking that remedial action be allowed, options x and y? > >> > >> It is worth noticing many CS folks would not be able to attend the MAG > >> meeting with many reasons. If our IGC coordintors have enough > >> resources to address this issue with more institutional basis to IGF > >> secretariat, I believe it would serve us better. Thank you for your > >> suggestion! > >> > >> > >> As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all > >> women, BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic > >> diversity than letting those who'll be here participate under > >> whatever rubric. > >> > >> > >> BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to > >> each stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a whole. > >> > >> > >> I was not aware that the principle of gender/geographical diversity > >> was applied to MAG as a whole not to each stakeholder. As pointed out > >> here, I support your proposal that such principle should > >> be widely implemented to each stakeholder group's MAG selection > >> process as well. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> YJ > >> > >> > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Bill and all, > >> > > >> > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil > >> society > >> > in this process. > >> > I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the > >> > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey. > >> > However, I cannot... > >> > > >> > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate > >> > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As > >> > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical > >> > diversity/gender issues. > >> > > >> > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my > difficulty > >> > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to > >> delegate my > >> > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. > >> > > >> > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a > responsible > >> > manner, it would be appreciated. > >> > > >> > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. > >> > > >> > Thanks in advance, > >> > YJ > >> > > >> > > >> > On 2/9/12, William Drake >> > wrote: > >> >> Hi > >> >> > >> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will > >> have written > >> >> to the MAG list. > >> >> > >> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet > >> >> > >> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the > >> host, the Vice > >> >> Minister from Azerbaijan > >> >> > >> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this > >> meeting per > >> >> Sha's letter. > >> >> > >> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November > >> >> > >> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil > >> society would be > >> >> > >> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > >> >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad > >> >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria > >> >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette > >> >> Ms. Park, Y. J. > >> >> Ms. Primo, Natasha > >> >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza > >> >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela > >> >> > >> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF > >> site. It's a > >> >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It > >> would be > >> >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on > the > >> >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be > >> sensible to > >> >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than > sitting > >> >> silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to > >> be able to > >> >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. > >> >> > >> >> Best, > >> >> > >> >> Bill > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Avri: > >> >>> > >> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from > >> Azerbaijan. Or > >> >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all > >> remains in > >> >>> flux. > >> >>> > >> >>> Wolfgang: > >> >>> > >> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question > >> is: Will Sha > >> >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands > >> of the next > >> >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His > >> terms ends in > >> >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His > >> relationship > >> >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM > >> was reelected > >> >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does > >> it mean? Be > >> >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is > >> not so bad > >> >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and > >> it will > >> >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> > >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> >>> > >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> >>> > >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Feb 10 04:12:43 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:12:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1202922303.75877.1328865163464.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d25> Dear Parminder and all Many thanks, Parminder, for your strong ststement on CS participation (compromise?) to "simili-MSHism" and for serving as a foil for the very interested groups. Once more I each term of your message. Instead of looking for replacing our absent members in the meeting (btw how to deal with the scandalous absence of our female CS members), CS should let their chairs ostensibly empty as to protest -at least formally- for such a biased and no longer finally bearable situation. Funding issues are inherent to a balanced CS participation (members of DCs, gender balanced) in any UN event, and -as far as we are concerned- far beyond the MAG and IGF in the whole WSIS follow-up procees. This will be clearly demonstrated at the coming WSIS Forum in next May in Geneva. Thats why CS cannot longer stay silent and live on compromises : it's highest time for the actual CS to say STOP, enough is enough. And your closing remark sounds like a watchword for us : in the WSIS process MSHism isn't but "a cover for greater corporate presence in a political space". Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT-France > Message du 10/02/12 06:48 > De : "parminder" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] > > Hi All > > We have reached a rather unacceptable, and I should say, shameful, situation vis a vis civil society participaiton in MAG whereby it is now a regular thing that CS participation is not funded. Such multistakeholderism (MSism) should be rejected out of hand. It fuels and justifies the doubts expressed by those who think that MSism of IG is just a ploy to get more seats on the table for the already powerful. CS cannot be represented just by people who can spend their own resources or live in nearby places of the North. We as CS must call this bluff, even if we lose some prized positions. We can then at least fight from the outside, as CS has often/ largely done till we get an honourable and acceptable arrangement to (also) participate from the inside. > > I think we should just tell them, either fund CS participation at least in the core committees etc of the IGF (which is generally done for all the UN system) or we are not interested to lend 'them' the credibility of CS participation in the system. > > On a connected note, it bothers me a lot that inside the WG on Improvements to the IGF, not many of us are too keen to push for ensuring a regular UN budget for the IGF/ MAG etc. (Those old ghostly notions of UN will take over the IGF, as if corporate and other partisan interested party funds controlling it is better!) It also bothers me that this issue, and in fact, in general, issues of IGF improvements seem not to bother many of us enough to bring on a spirited discussion, and putting up strong clear positions that defend the interests of the marginalised, whom we should most centrally be representing > > If this is multistakeholderism, then its critics are right, I think - a cover for greater corporate presence in political spaces.... > > parminder > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 06:58 AM, YJ Park wrote: Hi Bill, > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi YJ > > Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend. > > Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular people who could stand in for the absent members at this point. Wouldn't it be better for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the Azeri VM a letter expressing concern about CS' underrepresentation and asking that remedial action be allowed, options x and y? > It is worth noticing many CS folks would not be able to attend the MAG meeting with many reasons. If our IGC coordintors have enough resources to address this issue with more institutional basis to IGF secretariat, I believe it would serve us better. Thank you for your suggestion! > > As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all women, BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic diversity than letting those who'll be here participate under whatever rubric. > BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to each stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a whole. > I was not aware that the principle of gender/geographical diversity was applied to MAG as a whole not to each stakeholder. As pointed out here, I support your proposal that such principle should be widely implemented to each stakeholder group's MAG selection process as well.Thanks,YJ > Best > > Bill > > On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote: > > > Hi Bill and all, > > > > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil society > > in this process. > > I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the > > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey. > > However, I cannot... > > > > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate > > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As > > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical > > diversity/gender issues. > > > > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my difficulty > > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to delegate my > > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. > > > > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a responsible > > manner, it would be appreciated. > > > > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > YJ > > > > > > On 2/9/12, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have written > >> to the MAG list. > >> > >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet > >> > >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the Vice > >> Minister from Azerbaijan > >> > >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting per > >> Sha's letter. > >> > >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November > >> > >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would be > >> > >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad > >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria > >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette > >> Ms. Park, Y. J. > >> Ms. Primo, Natasha > >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza > >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela > >> > >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. It's a > >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It would be > >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the > >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible to > >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting > >> silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to > >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> > >>> Avri: > >>> > >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or > >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in > >>> flux. > >>> > >>> Wolfgang: > >>> > >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha > >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next > >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in > >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship > >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected > >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be > >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad > >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will > >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 10 04:14:14 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:14:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> Message-ID: <7pfn4q3m$NNPFArt@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <4F34D4CE.6030504 at apc.org>, at 10:26:54 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Anriette Esterhuysen writes >If all non-governmental stakeholders were to form a common position on >support for participation we would stand a stronger change, but, the >other stakeholder groups have more resources, and are by and large >better organised. Nevertheless I would like to propose as ask them to do >a joint letter with us on the importance of supporting and facilitating >effective multi-stakeholder participation. It's the "other non-governmental stakeholders" who are providing much of the IGF's intersessional funding. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/funding/86-donors Does anyone have a breakdown of whose expenses (stakeholder groups rather than individuals) have been paid from these funds to participate in consultation/MAG meetings in the past? -- 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 anriette at apc.org Fri Feb 10 04:22:21 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:22:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F34E1CD.8050704@apc.org> Dear Baudouin... thanks... it is also worth remembering that civil society participation in both phases of the WSIS was supported mostly by UNESCO... particularly participation from Africa. That UNESCO is no longer playing this role, along with UNDP's overall withdrawal from WSIS follow up (mostly) has had a dramatic impact on developing country civil society participation. But expecting this to change in the near future is simply not realistic. Anriette On 10/02/12 11:03, Baudouin Schombe wrote: > Hi all, > > We are struggling for financial support for our participation in MAG and > I feel that it is also in the various activities in subregional, > regional and international. > Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be > noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT > projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. The > experience in Africa shows that often the impetus from the CS to the > summit of political power that are policy-makers because they are in order. > > Reduce or erase the presence of SC in the hemicycle of the debates on > Internet governance sufficiently demonstrates that the Geneva Plan of > Action and the Tunis Agenda were only dressing. Why have spent so much > money to achieve such a disappointment? > > There is no reason to give up, maybe we can think about other > fundraising mechanisms to ensure participation of civil society in the > MAG and other ICT activities at the sub regional, regional and > international levels. > > The two processes of phase I and II demonstrated sufficient relevant > consultations at national, subregional and regional levels. These are > strategies that could yield convincing results in ICT development until > now. > We are entering a new phase of cybersecurity. And that's just at that > moment that CS sees exclude debates. No, why? We have the right to > participate in these debates. > > 2012/2/10 Anriette Esterhuysen > > > Dear Parminder and all > > On 10/02/12 07:47, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > > > We have reached a rather unacceptable, and I should say, shameful, > > situation vis a vis civil society participaiton in MAG whereby it > is now > > a regular thing that CS participation is not funded. Such > > multistakeholderism (MSism) should be rejected out of hand. It > fuels and > > justifies the doubts expressed by those who think that MSism of IG is > > just a ploy to get more seats on the table for the already > powerful. CS > > cannot be represented just by people who can spend their own resources > > or live in nearby places of the North. We as CS must call this bluff, > > even if we lose some prized positions. We can then at least fight from > > the outside, as CS has often/ largely done till we get an > honourable and > > acceptable arrangement to (also) participate from the inside. > > I agree with this position in principle, but at the same time 'fighting' > from the outside is an extremely risky strategy. > > If all non-governmental stakeholders were to form a common position on > support for participation we would stand a stronger change, but, the > other stakeholder groups have more resources, and are by and large > better organised. Nevertheless I would like to propose as ask them to do > a joint letter with us on the importance of supporting and facilitating > effective multi-stakeholder participation. > > I completely agree with Parminder that we cannot indefinitely continue > to give a process credibility when we are not able to participate > effectively. > > Lack of funding for CS participation is a UN-wide issue. APC has had to > finance our own participation in other UN spaces as well, such as the > Committee for the Advancement of Women and also the Human Rights > Council. The UN is in financial difficulties, and civil society > participation is one of many areas that are suffering as a result. > > The difference with the MAG is that it members are appointed by the UNSG > and expected to work hard and contribute to making a UN-linked process > stronger. The same applies to the CSTD WG. In this instance the UN must > take responsibility for making sure that bodies that it constitutes > function effectively. > > > > I think we should just tell them, either fund CS participation at > least > > in the core committees etc of the IGF (which is generally done for all > > the UN system) or we are not interested to lend 'them' the credibility > > of CS participation in the system. > > Agree that we should convey this to the SG as the person that appoints > the MAG. > > > > On a connected note, it bothers me a lot that inside the WG on > > Improvements to the IGF, not many of us are too keen to push for > > ensuring a regular UN budget for the IGF/ MAG etc. (Those old ghostly > > notions of UN will take over the IGF, as if corporate and other > partisan > > interested party funds controlling it is better!) It also bothers me > > that this issue, and in fact, in general, issues of IGF improvements > > seem not to bother many of us enough to bring on a spirited > discussion, > > and putting up strong clear positions that defend the interests of the > > marginalised, whom we should most centrally be representing > > Parminder is correct in that we have not had a common position, even > among CS, on UN funding for the IGF/MAG. Most governments, as well as > the tech and business communities oppose the idea. > > > Personally I don't think it is realistic, or desirable to have the IGF > funded entirely, or mostly from the UN. But I agree strongly with > Parminder that there does need to be some regular support from the UN. > In part this exists through the in-kind support given to the > secretariat. But this is not enough. > > A few areas of ongoing funding would make a big difference: > > * MAG functioning and participation - For example, a regular amount made > available every year through local UNDP offices to support participation > of non-governmental stakeholders who don't have the resources to travel > to meetings. > > * The salary of the executive coordinator, so that there can be > continuity and leadership at secretariat level. > > > In one of my inputs to the CSTD WG I had proposed a 30% UN 40% > additional (voluntary is their term) funding. But I think only Parminder > showed any support for that... it is simply not an idea that business, > or governments, or the UN itself is going to support - for various > reasons. > > Here is the text from the chairman's summary which will frame this > discussion at the next CSTD WG on IGF Improvements meeting. It is good > to note that he included this text, which was submitted by CS. He must > be commended for his respect for CS input. > > "Explore UN general funding for the core structure and functions of the > IGF, including improving participation and outreach, in addition to > welcoming voluntary private funds." > > and > > "Consider a model whereby the SG's office provides (1) in-kind support > (2) that this in-kind support is stated clearly (e.g. communications, > office space, etc.) and given an estimated dollar value in IGF budgets > (3) that some core operational expenditure, e.g. the salary of the > Executive Coordinator be funded through the UN." > > Anriette > > > > > > > If this is multistakeholderism, then its critics are right, I > think - a > > cover for greater corporate presence in political spaces.... > > > > parminder > > > > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 06:58 AM, YJ Park wrote: > >> Hi Bill, > >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, William Drake > > >> >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi YJ > >> > >> Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend. > >> > >> Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular > people > >> who could stand in for the absent members at this point. > Wouldn't > >> it be better for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the > Azeri VM > >> a letter expressing concern about CS' underrepresentation and > >> asking that remedial action be allowed, options x and y? > >> > >> It is worth noticing many CS folks would not be able to attend > the MAG > >> meeting with many reasons. If our IGC coordintors have enough > >> resources to address this issue with more institutional basis to IGF > >> secretariat, I believe it would serve us better. Thank you for your > >> suggestion! > >> > >> > >> As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats > (all > >> women, BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and > geographic > >> diversity than letting those who'll be here participate under > >> whatever rubric. > >> > >> > >> BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to > >> each stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a > whole. > >> > >> > >> I was not aware that the principle of gender/geographical diversity > >> was applied to MAG as a whole not to each stakeholder. As pointed out > >> here, I support your proposal that such principle should > >> be widely implemented to each stakeholder group's MAG selection > >> process as well. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> YJ > >> > >> > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Bill and all, > >> > > >> > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil > >> society > >> > in this process. > >> > I initially considered attending the meeting in person > given the > >> > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG > journey. > >> > However, I cannot... > >> > > >> > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate > >> > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As > >> > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the > geographical > >> > diversity/gender issues. > >> > > >> > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my > difficulty > >> > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to > >> delegate my > >> > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. > >> > > >> > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a > responsible > >> > manner, it would be appreciated. > >> > > >> > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. > >> > > >> > Thanks in advance, > >> > YJ > >> > > >> > > >> > On 2/9/12, William Drake > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> Hi > >> >> > >> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will > >> have written > >> >> to the MAG list. > >> >> > >> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet > >> >> > >> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the > >> host, the Vice > >> >> Minister from Azerbaijan > >> >> > >> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this > >> meeting per > >> >> Sha's letter. > >> >> > >> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November > >> >> > >> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil > >> society would be > >> >> > >> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > >> >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad > >> >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria > >> >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette > >> >> Ms. Park, Y. J. > >> >> Ms. Primo, Natasha > >> >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza > >> >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela > >> >> > >> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF > >> site. It's a > >> >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It > >> would be > >> >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. > And on the > >> >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be > >> sensible to > >> >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather > than sitting > >> >> silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to > >> be able to > >> >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. > >> >> > >> >> Best, > >> >> > >> >> Bill > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Avri: > >> >>> > >> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from > >> Azerbaijan. Or > >> >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all > >> remains in > >> >>> flux. > >> >>> > >> >>> Wolfgang: > >> >>> > >> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question > >> is: Will Sha > >> >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands > >> of the next > >> >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His > >> terms ends in > >> >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His > >> relationship > >> >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM > >> was reelected > >> >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does > >> it mean? Be > >> >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is > >> not so bad > >> >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and > >> it will > >> >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> > > >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> >>> > >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> >>> > >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ > ACADEMIE DES TIC > FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre > At-Large Member > NCSG Member > > email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com > baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net > > tél:+243998983491 > skype:b.schombe > wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net > blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 10 04:26:20 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:26:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> Message-ID: In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). -- 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 lnalwoga at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 05:30:15 2012 From: lnalwoga at gmail.com (Lillian Nalwoga) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:30:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] MAG rotation - Will it take place next week .. ? In-Reply-To: <176F721F876A411E97578A8642046346@UserVAIO> References: <4F33F132.5010709@eff.org> <176F721F876A411E97578A8642046346@UserVAIO> Message-ID: As a MAG nominee for the IGC, I too will endeavour to participate the meeting remotely. Regards, Lillian On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > As an IGC nominee for the MAG I'll try to attend remotely although my > connectivity (I'll be in Bangladesh helping to develop an ICT4D project) > may > be somewhat limited. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Katitza > Rodriguez > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:16 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] MAG rotation - Will it take place next week .. ? > > > Hi folk, > > It seems the current MAG will attend the meeting since we haven't heard > anything about new MAG but I have asked that question to the Secretariat > cc all MAGs members. I will report back. Unfortunately, myself won't be > able to go on this occasion. I will be able to join remotely on 15-16 > but not on the 14. (We have a retreat were no internet is allowed). > > On 2/9/12 12:47 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <13BD50A6-A0B7-46A3-8E20-FB35103604EE at privaterra.org>, at > > 15:27:26 on Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > > writes > >> Thus the question is - have existing MAG members been notified that > >> they need to attend the meeting next week...? > > > > They need more than a week's notice, to make travel arrangements, > > seeking funding etc. And 2/3 of the current MAG would suddenly find > > themselves "no longer required", although if there was a new chair he > > might select some to be special advisers. > > > > On reconsideration, it was probably never a possibility that the new > > MAG could be chosen, confirmed and convened between 31st Jan and 14th > > Feb. > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of > speech since 1990 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 06:01:35 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:31:35 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> Message-ID: Parminder is correct: this MUST be addressed However, I agree with Anriette that 'empty chairs' are a dangerous tactic. One side of the polarized Venezuelan politics boycotted a National Assembly election, giving the ruling party and effective and legal control of the government, and winning back lost seats is not easy. My impression is that boycotts are only effective in situations that have a high level of representation and redress already in place. As Baudouin Schombe points out, funding is hard to find, and the process is difficult on many levels, with governments and international organizations facing tight budgets as well. Diplo has a history of excellent collaborators and partners, and yet the increasing bureaucratization of the funding process means even a concept note takes a high investment of time and energy -- and success at the first step means full-time work on preparing a project proposal. Most of us now have more complex jobs and fewer funds to work with. We must work on a strategy towards a solution: How can we emphasize the relationship between the growing Internet business with billions of US$ (ICANN, registrars etc.) and the extremely important role of CS in ensuring Internet development for future 'clients'? It is ultimately in the interest of 'Internet business' to support CS for the growth and sustainability of the Internet. We need to connect the dots: Support for CS is not just assuaging a social conscience--it is also good business. Good ideas for are emerging--we need networking, but we also need to bridge this particular 'divide' between CS and funders/business. Some of us should work on this gap even as others work on the principles. I am willing to work on a strategy towards this end. How can we move it forward? There are business networks we can work with. How do we reach out to them as IG CS? Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque Diplo Foundation www.diplomacy.edu/ig VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu *Join the Diplo community IG discussions: www.diplointernetgovernance.org* On 10 February 2012 03:56, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Parminder and all > > On 10/02/12 07:47, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > > > We have reached a rather unacceptable, and I should say, shameful, > > situation vis a vis civil society participaiton in MAG whereby it is now > > a regular thing that CS participation is not funded. Such > > multistakeholderism (MSism) should be rejected out of hand. It fuels and > > justifies the doubts expressed by those who think that MSism of IG is > > just a ploy to get more seats on the table for the already powerful. CS > > cannot be represented just by people who can spend their own resources > > or live in nearby places of the North. We as CS must call this bluff, > > even if we lose some prized positions. We can then at least fight from > > the outside, as CS has often/ largely done till we get an honourable and > > acceptable arrangement to (also) participate from the inside. > > I agree with this position in principle, but at the same time 'fighting' > from the outside is an extremely risky strategy. > > If all non-governmental stakeholders were to form a common position on > support for participation we would stand a stronger change, but, the > other stakeholder groups have more resources, and are by and large > better organised. Nevertheless I would like to propose as ask them to do > a joint letter with us on the importance of supporting and facilitating > effective multi-stakeholder participation. > > I completely agree with Parminder that we cannot indefinitely continue > to give a process credibility when we are not able to participate > effectively. > > Lack of funding for CS participation is a UN-wide issue. APC has had to > finance our own participation in other UN spaces as well, such as the > Committee for the Advancement of Women and also the Human Rights > Council. The UN is in financial difficulties, and civil society > participation is one of many areas that are suffering as a result. > > The difference with the MAG is that it members are appointed by the UNSG > and expected to work hard and contribute to making a UN-linked process > stronger. The same applies to the CSTD WG. In this instance the UN must > take responsibility for making sure that bodies that it constitutes > function effectively. > > > > I think we should just tell them, either fund CS participation at least > > in the core committees etc of the IGF (which is generally done for all > > the UN system) or we are not interested to lend 'them' the credibility > > of CS participation in the system. > > Agree that we should convey this to the SG as the person that appoints > the MAG. > > > > On a connected note, it bothers me a lot that inside the WG on > > Improvements to the IGF, not many of us are too keen to push for > > ensuring a regular UN budget for the IGF/ MAG etc. (Those old ghostly > > notions of UN will take over the IGF, as if corporate and other partisan > > interested party funds controlling it is better!) It also bothers me > > that this issue, and in fact, in general, issues of IGF improvements > > seem not to bother many of us enough to bring on a spirited discussion, > > and putting up strong clear positions that defend the interests of the > > marginalised, whom we should most centrally be representing > > Parminder is correct in that we have not had a common position, even > among CS, on UN funding for the IGF/MAG. Most governments, as well as > the tech and business communities oppose the idea. > > > Personally I don't think it is realistic, or desirable to have the IGF > funded entirely, or mostly from the UN. But I agree strongly with > Parminder that there does need to be some regular support from the UN. > In part this exists through the in-kind support given to the > secretariat. But this is not enough. > > A few areas of ongoing funding would make a big difference: > > * MAG functioning and participation - For example, a regular amount made > available every year through local UNDP offices to support participation > of non-governmental stakeholders who don't have the resources to travel > to meetings. > > * The salary of the executive coordinator, so that there can be > continuity and leadership at secretariat level. > > > In one of my inputs to the CSTD WG I had proposed a 30% UN 40% > additional (voluntary is their term) funding. But I think only Parminder > showed any support for that... it is simply not an idea that business, > or governments, or the UN itself is going to support - for various > reasons. > > Here is the text from the chairman's summary which will frame this > discussion at the next CSTD WG on IGF Improvements meeting. It is good > to note that he included this text, which was submitted by CS. He must > be commended for his respect for CS input. > > "Explore UN general funding for the core structure and functions of the > IGF, including improving participation and outreach, in addition to > welcoming voluntary private funds." > > and > > "Consider a model whereby the SG's office provides (1) in-kind support > (2) that this in-kind support is stated clearly (e.g. communications, > office space, etc.) and given an estimated dollar value in IGF budgets > (3) that some core operational expenditure, e.g. the salary of the > Executive Coordinator be funded through the UN." > > Anriette > > > > > > > If this is multistakeholderism, then its critics are right, I think - a > > cover for greater corporate presence in political spaces.... > > > > parminder > > > > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 06:58 AM, YJ Park wrote: > >> Hi Bill, > >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM, William Drake >> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi YJ > >> > >> Good to hear from you, sorry you can't attend. > >> > >> Personally, I wouldn't think we need to identify particular people > >> who could stand in for the absent members at this point. Wouldn't > >> it be better for Sala and Izumi to send Chengetai and the Azeri VM > >> a letter expressing concern about CS' underrepresentation and > >> asking that remedial action be allowed, options x and y? > >> > >> It is worth noticing many CS folks would not be able to attend the MAG > >> meeting with many reasons. If our IGC coordintors have enough > >> resources to address this issue with more institutional basis to IGF > >> secretariat, I believe it would serve us better. Thank you for your > >> suggestion! > >> > >> > >> As to Roland's points, sure, but having 5 or 6 empty CS seats (all > >> women, BTW) is hardly going to be better for gender and geographic > >> diversity than letting those who'll be here participate under > >> whatever rubric. > >> > >> > >> BTW I would argue that the diversity obligation should apply to > >> each stakeholder group on the MAG, not just to the MAG as a whole. > >> > >> > >> I was not aware that the principle of gender/geographical diversity > >> was applied to MAG as a whole not to each stakeholder. As pointed out > >> here, I support your proposal that such principle should > >> be widely implemented to each stakeholder group's MAG selection > >> process as well. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> YJ > >> > >> > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:18 PM, YJ Park wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Bill and all, > >> > > >> > Thank you for raising the issues of securing voices from civil > >> society > >> > in this process. > >> > I initially considered attending the meeting in person given the > >> > significance of this meeting at this juncture of our IG journey. > >> > However, I cannot... > >> > > >> > It is great to see a proctive proposal from Bill to delegate > >> > "representation" if it is accepted. Noticed Roland's points. As > >> > addressed, I myself would be quite sensitive to the geographical > >> > diversity/gender issues. > >> > > >> > Given the criticality of this upcoming MAG meeting and my > difficulty > >> > with attending the meeting in person, I would be happy to > >> delegate my > >> > MAG access to Bill, if this is permitted. > >> > > >> > If Bill is willing to ensure civil society's roles in a > responsible > >> > manner, it would be appreciated. > >> > > >> > My apology for not attending the upcoming meeting. > >> > > >> > Thanks in advance, > >> > YJ > >> > > >> > > >> > On 2/9/12, William Drake >> > wrote: > >> >> Hi > >> >> > >> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will > >> have written > >> >> to the MAG list. > >> >> > >> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet > >> >> > >> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the > >> host, the Vice > >> >> Minister from Azerbaijan > >> >> > >> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this > >> meeting per > >> >> Sha's letter. > >> >> > >> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November > >> >> > >> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil > >> society would be > >> >> > >> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai > >> >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad > >> >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria > >> >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette > >> >> Ms. Park, Y. J. > >> >> Ms. Primo, Natasha > >> >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza > >> >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela > >> >> > >> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF > >> site. It's a > >> >> fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It > >> would be > >> >> helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on > the > >> >> assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be > >> sensible to > >> >> ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than > sitting > >> >> silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to > >> be able to > >> >> designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. > >> >> > >> >> Best, > >> >> > >> >> Bill > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Avri: > >> >>> > >> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from > >> Azerbaijan. Or > >> >>> maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all > >> remains in > >> >>> flux. > >> >>> > >> >>> Wolfgang: > >> >>> > >> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question > >> is: Will Sha > >> >>> Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands > >> of the next > >> >>> Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His > >> terms ends in > >> >>> June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His > >> relationship > >> >>> with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM > >> was reelected > >> >>> as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does > >> it mean? Be > >> >>> prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is > >> not so bad > >> >>> (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and > >> it will > >> >>> strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> > >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> >>> > >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> >>> > >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Feb 10 09:28:24 2012 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:28:24 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear All, I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message V3K_nha9Q at mail.gmail.com <5VgEmfoYdV3K_nha9Q at mail.gmail.com>>, at > 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe > writes > > Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >> > > This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" > always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling > expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or > Internet Governance issues. > > Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you > will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to > attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the > sessions at ITU World). > -- > 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 graciela at nupef.org.br Thu Feb 9 07:32:09 2012 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:32:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <4F33B3E5.5040202@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F33BCC9.5090703@nupef.org.br> Hi, Anriette, Bill and all, > I am not sure about Graciela.. but when we last talk it was also not > going to be possible for her. But she can confirm. I also won't be able to attend this time. I support the proposal of asking the chair to allow the participation of alternative CS people. best regards, Graciela > Best > > Anriette > > > > On 09/02/12 13:15, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> I just spoke with Chengetai, who by the time you see this will have written to the MAG list. >> >> * No Exec. Coordinator (no money) or Special Advisor yet >> >> * Open consultation and MAG meeting will be chaired by the host, the Vice Minister from Azerbaijan >> >> * No MAG rotation, the existing MAG remains in place for this meeting per Sha's letter. >> >> * The IGF date will be announced next week, it's in November >> >> So at the MAG meeting next week, able to speak for civil society would be >> >> Mr. Al Shatti, Qusai >> Mr. Bajwa, Fouad >> Ms. Betancourt, Valeria >> Ms. Hofmann, Jeanette >> Ms. Park, Y. J. >> Ms. Primo, Natasha >> Ms. Rodriguez Pereda, Katitza >> Ms. Selaimen, Graciela >> >> Sorry if I missed anyone in cutting and pasting from the IGF site. It's a fair bet that not all of the above will be in attendance. It would be helpful to know who from the current MAG will be here. And on the assumption that we will not be fully represented, it might be sensible to ask the chair to allow observers to participate rather than sitting silently. Or if he thinks that'd be inappropriate, for CS to be able to designate temporary alternates for its missing MAG members. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> Avri: >>> >>> I suppose by default it may end up the lead organizer from Azerbaijan. Or maybe one of the DESA people will do this meeting while all remains in flux. >>> >>> Wolfgang: >>> >>> The host country is always the Co-Chair. The other question is: Will Sha Zukang make this decision or will he leave this in the hands of the next Under Secretary Generel for Social and Economic Affairs. His terms ends in June 2012 and it is unclear whether he will continue. His relationship with Ban Kin Moon is not really a friendly one and after BKM was reelected as SG he will have his own ideas for his deputies. What does it mean? Be prepared for a continuation of an unclear situation which is not so bad (as long as the key players in the MAG drive the process) and it will strengthen the position of Chengetai (which is very good) . >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -- Graciela Selaimen Instituto Nupef www.nupef.org.br www.politics.org.br www.rets.org.br www.tiwa.org.br -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 11 01:15:02 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:45:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> Hi All While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for *CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. * And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the *most* important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (/plus/ long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) Parminder On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > Dear All, > > I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS > representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial > issue for participation in the IGF process. > > CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under > Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS > participation regardless of being in the MAG. > > The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the > involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN > system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS > colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. > > I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its > financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN > regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. > > I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all > actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can > present a better case from inside the process. > > If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way > respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before > making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to > advocate its positions. > > Best, > > Miguel > > Disclaimer > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my > employer or any other institution. > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > In message > >, > at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe > > > writes > > Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it > should be > noted that civil society plays a major role in the > implementation of ICT > projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. > > > This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free > advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for > travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just > Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. > > Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a > conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't > currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of > (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). > -- > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Feb 11 04:45:13 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:45:13 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA36@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi all, there is an example where we can refer to. During the PrepComs of the WSIS (202 - 2005), there was a special WSIS Civil Society Bureau (managed by Alain and Louise) which was funded by the overall WSIS budget. This was not a small budget but it enabled CS participation in PrepComs. The elected CS Bureau (about 11 membersrepresenting so-called "CS families") had to manage the applications for CS funding. This was a transparent process. The problem now is that the WSIS was part of the regular UN/ITU budget, the IGF is not. The compromise of the "unloved" IGF, reached in Tunis, was that the okay for the IGF was based on the condition that there will be no extra funding from the regular UN budget. Okay time has changed and the funding issue is under consideration in the UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG. My position is that we should call for a "mixed funding" on a sustainable basis (some core functions financed by the UN budget, extra voluntary funding from member states and private corporations, including ICANN but also Facebook, Gogle etc. (based on a five year voluntary commitment). This remains a key issue for the forthcming 5th meeting of the group end of February in geneva (just the other week after MAG). For the moment Parminders approach to have a two hour "visible walk out" to protest has its merits. But if we do this, we need a more comprehensive approach. A "walk out" has to be embedded into a mix of complementary actions as a letter to the USG, a letter to the IGF Secretariat, a letter to the Chair if the MAG meeting (the Azeri Minister) and a press release. People n Geneva should organize a special press briefing (on Wednesday or Thursday noon) and invite the press people accredited in Geneva. It would make sense also to talk in advance to friendly governments and friendly private corporations which support the CS outcry and to invite them to participate in the press briefing (or at least to give verbal support). Best wishes wolfgang (still in the hospital) ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Miguel Alcaine Gesendet: Fr 10.02.2012 15:28 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] Dear All, I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: In message >, at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 11 07:54:24 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:24:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> Message-ID: <4F366500.2050702@itforchange.net> Avri/ All I am proposing a token/ symbolic walk out, with walk-out-ers returning after an hour or so. This is to start setting the stage for a possible larger boycott if things simply do not improve. I do not know what else you have in mind for setting the stage foe a possible symbolic walkout after a few months. I dont see anyone taking any notice of anything less then what I propose (will be great even if they take note of this). The problem is that in the typical market/ busies thinking dominated IG environment, funding participation looks like a 'well-of course' kind of a side issue, not a central and necessary feature of improving participation (MSism). And we need to do something which attempts to make the point clear that it is a necessary feature of improving participation, and the whole thing can be considered a sham without it. Only something like a symbolic walk out may make some people start thinking, well, they seem to be rather agitated, so lets see what they are trying to convey etc.... At the GW on IGF Improvements, we tried to be as dramatic as possible, read out a very forceful statement, and this was a small group of which we were designated members, and the exclusions of those who could not attend was also starkly clear. But no one took notice, no one really responded or even sympathised and proceedings went off like normal. Point is; they dont think it to be central MS issue. We must place it there. Perhaps most importantly, if we can have some action in the MAG/ open consultations there is a chance that this issue can be strongly brought up in the WG on IGF improvements, and the CS members present make it a non negotiable thing that the final report clearly writes down in its report that CS participation in MAG etc has to be ensured with regular UN budget and long term commitments of voluntary funds. If this thing does not go into the report now then CS will always be at the mercy on how the things stand at the moment. This fact brings special urgency to the issue (When i said time for letters is over, i meant time for 'just' writing letters is over.) Parminder On Saturday 11 February 2012 05:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. > > I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared > > And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. > > Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. > > > If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. > > avri > > On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: > > >> Hi All >> >> While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. >> >> In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). >> >> Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! >> >> Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. >> >> And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: >> >> The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. >> >> If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. >> >> Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. >> >> (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >>> >>> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >>> >>> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >>> >>> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >>> >>> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >>> >>> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> Disclaimer >>> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message, at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >>> >>> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >>> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >>> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >>> >>> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >>> >>> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >>> -- >>> 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Feb 11 07:40:37 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:40:37 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA37@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 1+ Avri is right. It needs more preparations, a strategy, reasonable alternative proposals. May would be nuch more effective than February. Than we have also the Report from the CSTD WG. w ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Sa 11.02.2012 13:18 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] Hi, While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. avri On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. > > In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). > > Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! > > Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. > > And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: > > The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. > > If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. > > Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. > > (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) > > Parminder > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >> >> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >> >> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >> >> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >> >> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >> >> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >> >> Best, >> >> Miguel >> >> Disclaimer >> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >> >> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >> >> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >> >> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >> -- >> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 11 07:18:29 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:18:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> Hi, While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. avri On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. > > In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). > > Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! > > Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. > > And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: > > The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. > > If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. > > Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. > > (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) > > Parminder > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >> >> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >> >> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >> >> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >> >> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >> >> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >> >> Best, >> >> Miguel >> >> Disclaimer >> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >> >> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >> >> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >> >> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >> -- >> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 11 08:38:26 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:38:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7AB7A8D7-8210-4CA8-B01D-A06F1DE03221@privaterra.org> Parminder, I don't agree with a walk out over the lack of financial support to participate. The current economic situation is such that funding of any kind is hard to obtain. Things will only get worse over the course of the next 2 years. We need to stay engaged. At this point in time, I think the meeting will just continue without us. I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a strategic effort on behalf of those on this list to develop speaking points well in advance of the meeting. We should work with those attending to make a strong statement and concurrently aggressively seek alternate sources of funding to support CS engagement. Walking away, is in my opinion, is not the best action at this moment in time. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-11, at 1:15 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. > > In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). > > Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! > > Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. > > And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: > > The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. > > If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. > > Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. > > (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) > > Parminder > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >> >> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >> >> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >> >> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >> >> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >> >> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >> >> Best, >> >> Miguel >> >> Disclaimer >> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >> >> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >> >> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >> >> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >> -- >> 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Sat Feb 11 08:42:58 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:42:58 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA36@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA36@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: As one of the CS members of the WSIS Civil Society Bureau, I can attest to the fact that it was effective in raising funds for participation. Alain, Louise and the rest of the elected CS members worked hard to not only identify funding sources but also worked with the hosts (Switzerland & Tunisia) to solve logistical issues that came up. The structure wasn't perfect, but it created a dialogue and fund that supported CS. We'd do well to develop something similar for IGF 2012 and beyond. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-11, at 4:45 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Hi all, > > there is an example where we can refer to. During the PrepComs of the WSIS (202 - 2005), there was a special WSIS Civil Society Bureau (managed by Alain and Louise) which was funded by the overall WSIS budget. This was not a small budget but it enabled CS participation in PrepComs. The elected CS Bureau (about 11 membersrepresenting so-called "CS families") had to manage the applications for CS funding. This was a transparent process. > > The problem now is that the WSIS was part of the regular UN/ITU budget, the IGF is not. The compromise of the "unloved" IGF, reached in Tunis, was that the okay for the IGF was based on the condition that there will be no extra funding from the regular UN budget. > > Okay time has changed and the funding issue is under consideration in the UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG. My position is that we should call for a "mixed funding" on a sustainable basis (some core functions financed by the UN budget, extra voluntary funding from member states and private corporations, including ICANN but also Facebook, Gogle etc. (based on a five year voluntary commitment). This remains a key issue for the forthcming 5th meeting of the group end of February in geneva (just the other week after MAG). > > For the moment Parminders approach to have a two hour "visible walk out" to protest has its merits. But if we do this, we need a more comprehensive approach. A "walk out" has to be embedded into a mix of complementary actions as a letter to the USG, a letter to the IGF Secretariat, a letter to the Chair if the MAG meeting (the Azeri Minister) and a press release. People n Geneva should organize a special press briefing (on Wednesday or Thursday noon) and invite the press people accredited in Geneva. It would make sense also to talk in advance to friendly governments and friendly private corporations which support the CS outcry and to invite them to participate in the press briefing (or at least to give verbal support). > > Best wishes > > wolfgang (still in the hospital) > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Miguel Alcaine > Gesendet: Fr 10.02.2012 15:28 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] > > > Dear All, > > I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. > > CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. > > The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. > > I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. > > I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. > > If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. > > Best, > > Miguel > > Disclaimer > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. > > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > > In message >, at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes > > > Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be > noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT > projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. > > > > This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. > > Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). > -- > 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 09:45:38 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:45:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F366500.2050702@itforchange.net> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> <4F366500.2050702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Everyone, Reading the string of messages I am 'hearing' several issues which seem to be being conflated and which might be resolved more easily if handled separately? 1. The critical issue of the few civil society representatives able to attend the MAG meeting this week coming. a) This is partly the result of people having resigned without their places being filled. Is there a process to address this circumstance? If not why not? If there is, why didn't it happen at the time? And why didn't we raise the issue then - or did we? b) In the case of existing representatives who can't attend none of them has suggested that lack of funding is what is preventing their attendance. If the problem is in fact lack of funding then they should state this FAST. c) In the absence of lack of funding as the issue preventing people from attending this meeting then I don't agree with the idea of 'walking out'. 2. Funding arrangement for civil society representatives at the MAG and similar meetings. a) This is also crucially important. Robert seems to have some good suggestions towards resolving the problem. b) In the case of the nominations process for the new MAG it would be interesting to discover how far the funding issue inhibited nominations. For myself I was initially interested in submitting a self-nomination. The Caribbean is woefully silent in the international arena, and I have a degree of credibility in the region in the Internet Governance field which, to an extent, crosses the language lines which tend to divide us. However when the funding issue came up I gave up. I am grateful to the many agencies - DiploFoundation, the International Telecommunications Union, the Government of Canada, the Commonwealth Secretariat, LACNIC, the Caribbean Telecommunications Union - who have facilitated my attendance at regional and international IGF meetings since Hyderabad in 2008, and to the British development Division, British Airways and ICANN who made it possible for me to attend earlier international meetings in this field. However I funded myself to attend the Vilnius IGF in 2010, and I 'attended' Nairobi remotely last year. Self-funding is currently out of the question and I don't have an institutional affiliation that might help with funding so I didn't make a submission. That's not to suggest that anyone would have wanted to select me, but simply to document what may have influenced the nomination situation for several people. c) Coming out of this, and while agreeing entirely with a need for face to face meetings, excellent quality in the provision for remote participation would make this particular playing field more level and would help to equip all of the team members with football boots. The developing world seems to spend a lot of its time trying to play barefoot when everyone else has studs. and 3. I would like to say a public thank you to Izumi especially and to others who have done the same thing for his/their excellent real time reporting of meetings attended. Obviously this can't happen from a closed meeting. Deirdre On 11 February 2012 08:54, parminder wrote: > ** > Avri/ All > > I am proposing a token/ symbolic walk out, with walk-out-ers returning > after an hour or so. This is to start setting the stage for a possible > larger boycott if things simply do not improve. I do not know what else you > have in mind for setting the stage foe a possible symbolic walkout after a > few months. I dont see anyone taking any notice of anything less then what > I propose (will be great even if they take note of this). > > The problem is that in the typical market/ busies thinking dominated IG > environment, funding participation looks like a 'well-of course' kind of a > side issue, not a central and necessary feature of improving participation > (MSism). And we need to do something which attempts to make the point clear > that it is a necessary feature of improving participation, and the whole > thing can be considered a sham without it. Only something like a symbolic > walk out may make some people start thinking, well, they seem to be rather > agitated, so lets see what they are trying to convey etc.... > > At the GW on IGF Improvements, we tried to be as dramatic as possible, > read out a very forceful statement, and this was a small group of which we > were designated members, and the exclusions of those who could not attend > was also starkly clear. But no one took notice, no one really responded or > even sympathised and proceedings went off like normal. Point is; they dont > think it to be central MS issue. We must place it there. > > Perhaps most importantly, if we can have some action in the MAG/ open > consultations there is a chance that this issue can be strongly brought up > in the WG on IGF improvements, and the CS members present make it a non > negotiable thing that the final report clearly writes down in its report > that CS participation in MAG etc has to be ensured with regular UN budget > and long term commitments of voluntary funds. If this thing does not go > into the report now then CS will always be at the mercy on how the things > stand at the moment. This fact brings special urgency to the issue > > (When i said time for letters is over, i meant time for 'just' writing > letters is over.) > > Parminder > > On Saturday 11 February 2012 05:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. > > I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared > > And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. > > Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. > > > If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. > > avri > > On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: > > > > Hi All > > While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. > > In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). > > Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! > > Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. > > And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: > > The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. > > If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. > > Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. > > (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) > > Parminder > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > > > Dear All, > > I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. > > CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. > > The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. > > I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. > > I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. > > If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. > > Best, > > Miguel > > Disclaimer > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes > > Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be > noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT > projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. > > This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. > > Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). > -- > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 11 11:39:33 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:09:33 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA37@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA37@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4F3699C5.6060007@itforchange.net> Hi Wolfgang, On Saturday 11 February 2012 06:10 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > 1+ Avri is right. It needs more preparations, a strategy, what kind of preparations, and and what strategy, pl provide some details, > reasonable alternative proposals. and what alternative proposals have you in mind. Alternative to what. I am seeking clear commitment for core funding, from regular UN funding plus long term committed voluntary funding, to always include funding for CS participation in MAG and this should not be left to the elements as has been for more than a year now. > May would be nuch more effective than February. Than we have also the Report from the CSTD WG. > As mentioned in my earlier email, I think we need to make this issue as visible as possible /right/ /now/ so that we can get it inscribed into the WG report. This is by far our best opportunity. Any time later will be too late for this purpose. Parminder > > w > > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Sa 11.02.2012 13:18 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] > > > > Hi, > > While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. > > I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared > > And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. > > Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. > > > If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. > > avri > > On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: > > >> Hi All >> >> While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. >> >> In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). >> >> Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! >> >> Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. >> >> And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: >> >> The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. >> >> If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. >> >> Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. >> >> (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >>> >>> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >>> >>> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >>> >>> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >>> >>> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >>> >>> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> Disclaimer >>> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message, at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >>> >>> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >>> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >>> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >>> >>> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >>> >>> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >>> -- >>> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 11 11:56:37 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:26:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> <4F366500.2050702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F369DC5.2090305@itforchange.net> Deirdre I am rather concerned by reading in your email that you wanted to but did not offer self nomination for MAG because 'the funding issue came up'. I am not aware of any such issue. Was the possibility of self funding ever made an an issue for nominating oneself or anyone else to MAG? I request specific response to this query by anyone who may have knowledge about it. BTW, it is fact that on a few earlier occasions, almost over the entire last one year, developing country CS members of the MAG did not attend because funding was not made available and I am sure the same is the reason this time about their non attendence. As to why they havent complained, and also no one else made such an issue of it here, is perhaps because this practice is now getting normalised, which is what we must act urgently against. the proof of such problematic 'normalization' of this practise is also evident from the fact that the impression reached you that you should not self nominate if you are not sure about funding yourself. I think this is a serious issue for IGC's consideration. Is this the kind of civil society representation that we are comfortable with? I now leave it to others to take this forward if there is a sentiment strong enough in its favour. parminder On Saturday 11 February 2012 08:15 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Everyone, > > Reading the string of messages I am 'hearing' several issues which > seem to be being conflated and which might be resolved more easily if > handled separately? > > 1. The critical issue of the few civil society representatives able to > attend the MAG meeting this week coming. > > a) This is partly the result of people having resigned without their > places being filled. Is there a process to address this circumstance? > If not why not? If there is, why didn't it happen at the time? And why > didn't we raise the issue then - or did we? > > b) In the case of existing representatives who can't attend none of > them has suggested that lack of funding is what is preventing their > attendance. If the problem is in fact lack of funding then they should > state this FAST. > > c) In the absence of lack of funding as the issue preventing people > from attending this meeting then I don't agree with the idea of > 'walking out'. > > 2. Funding arrangement for civil society representatives at the MAG > and similar meetings. > > a) This is also crucially important. Robert seems to have some good > suggestions towards resolving the problem. > > b) In the case of the nominations process for the new MAG it would be > interesting to discover how far the funding issue inhibited > nominations. For myself I was initially interested in submitting a > self-nomination. The Caribbean is woefully silent in the international > arena, and I have a degree of credibility in the region in the > Internet Governance field which, to an extent, crosses the language > lines which tend to divide us. However when the funding issue came up > I gave up. > > I am grateful to the many agencies - DiploFoundation, the > International Telecommunications Union, the Government of Canada, the > Commonwealth Secretariat, LACNIC, the Caribbean Telecommunications > Union - who have facilitated my attendance at regional and > international IGF meetings since Hyderabad in 2008, and to the British > development Division, British Airways and ICANN who made it possible > for me to attend earlier international meetings in this field. However > I funded myself to attend the Vilnius IGF in 2010, and I 'attended' > Nairobi remotely last year. Self-funding is currently out of the > question and I don't have an institutional affiliation that might help > with funding so I didn't make a submission. That's not to suggest that > anyone would have wanted to select me, but simply to document what may > have influenced the nomination situation for several people. > > c) Coming out of this, and while agreeing entirely with a need for > face to face meetings, excellent quality in the provision for remote > participation would make this particular playing field more level and > would help to equip all of the team members with football boots. The > developing world seems to spend a lot of its time trying to play > barefoot when everyone else has studs. > > and > > 3. I would like to say a public thank you to Izumi especially and to > others who have done the same thing for his/their excellent real time > reporting of meetings attended. Obviously this can't happen from a > closed meeting. > > Deirdre > > > On 11 February 2012 08:54, parminder > wrote: > > Avri/ All > > I am proposing a token/ symbolic walk out, with walk-out-ers > returning after an hour or so. This is to start setting the stage > for a possible larger boycott if things simply do not improve. I > do not know what else you have in mind for setting the stage foe a > possible symbolic walkout after a few months. I dont see anyone > taking any notice of anything less then what I propose (will be > great even if they take note of this). > > The problem is that in the typical market/ busies thinking > dominated IG environment, funding participation looks like a > 'well-of course' kind of a side issue, not a central and necessary > feature of improving participation (MSism). And we need to do > something which attempts to make the point clear that it is a > necessary feature of improving participation, and the whole thing > can be considered a sham without it. Only something like a > symbolic walk out may make some people start thinking, well, they > seem to be rather agitated, so lets see what they are trying to > convey etc.... > > At the GW on IGF Improvements, we tried to be as dramatic as > possible, read out a very forceful statement, and this was a small > group of which we were designated members, and the exclusions of > those who could not attend was also starkly clear. But no one took > notice, no one really responded or even sympathised and > proceedings went off like normal. Point is; they dont think it to > be central MS issue. We must place it there. > > Perhaps most importantly, if we can have some action in the MAG/ > open consultations there is a chance that this issue can be > strongly brought up in the WG on IGF improvements, and the CS > members present make it a non negotiable thing that the final > report clearly writes down in its report that CS participation in > MAG etc has to be ensured with regular UN budget and long term > commitments of voluntary funds. If this thing does not go into the > report now then CS will always be at the mercy on how the things > stand at the moment. This fact brings special urgency to the issue > > (When i said time for letters is over, i meant time for 'just' > writing letters is over.) > > Parminder > > On Saturday 11 February 2012 05:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. >> >> I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared >> >> And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. >> >> Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. >> >> >> If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. >> >> avri >> >> On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. >>> >>> In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). >>> >>> Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! >>> >>> Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. >>> >>> And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: >>> >>> The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. >>> >>> If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. >>> >>> Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. >>> >>> (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >>>> >>>> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >>>> >>>> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >>>> >>>> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >>>> >>>> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >>>> >>>> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Miguel >>>> >>>> Disclaimer >>>> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>> In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >>>> >>>> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >>>> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >>>> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >>>> >>>> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >>>> >>>> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 12:30:25 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:30:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F369DC5.2090305@itforchange.net> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> <4F366500.2050702@itforchange.net> <4F369DC5.2090305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Somewhere towards the end of the discussion about the MAG nominations I got the idea - and it's very possible that I misunderstood something but it seemed clear enough to me at the time to stop me - that in making the nominations, and subsequently in the consideration for selection, the nominee's having institutional backing to provide funding support was going to be important. That being the case I changed my mind. The argument made pragmatic sense to me - there need to be people chosen who are able to attend all of the meetings. It would be arrogant and stupid, particularly to SELF nominate, to represent a constituency with no clear idea of where the plane fare was coming from. Why waste the time and energy of the NOMCOM? I think it is very important now to establish clearly whatever link exists between non-attendance at meetings and funding problems. I also still wonder why those seats made vacant by resignations were not filled at the time, particularly considering the apparent importance given to the issue of 'diversity' in the profile of the MAG group. Particularly in circumstances where the people who resigned were all women. I'll see if I can find the messages I refer to. Meanwhile best wishes and good luck to those people who will be present at the meeting in Geneva, to the new nominees, and to those who are finally selected Deirdre On 11 February 2012 12:56, parminder wrote: > ** > Deirdre > > I am rather concerned by reading in your email that you wanted to but did > not offer self nomination for MAG because 'the funding issue came up'. I > am not aware of any such issue. Was the possibility of self funding ever > made an an issue for nominating oneself or anyone else to MAG? I request > specific response to this query by anyone who may have knowledge about it. > > BTW, it is fact that on a few earlier occasions, almost over the entire > last one year, developing country CS members of the MAG did not attend > because funding was not made available and I am sure the same is the reason > this time about their non attendence. As to why they havent complained, and > also no one else made such an issue of it here, is perhaps because this > practice is now getting normalised, which is what we must act urgently > against. the proof of such problematic 'normalization' of this practise is > also evident from the fact that the impression reached you that you should > not self nominate if you are not sure about funding yourself. > > I think this is a serious issue for IGC's consideration. Is this the kind > of civil society representation that we are comfortable with? > > I now leave it to others to take this forward if there is a sentiment > strong enough in its favour. > > parminder > > On Saturday 11 February 2012 08:15 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Dear Everyone, > > Reading the string of messages I am 'hearing' several issues which seem to > be being conflated and which might be resolved more easily if handled > separately? > > 1. The critical issue of the few civil society representatives able to > attend the MAG meeting this week coming. > > a) This is partly the result of people having resigned without their > places being filled. Is there a process to address this circumstance? If > not why not? If there is, why didn't it happen at the time? And why didn't > we raise the issue then - or did we? > > b) In the case of existing representatives who can't attend none of them > has suggested that lack of funding is what is preventing their attendance. > If the problem is in fact lack of funding then they should state this FAST. > > c) In the absence of lack of funding as the issue preventing people from > attending this meeting then I don't agree with the idea of 'walking out'. > > 2. Funding arrangement for civil society representatives at the MAG and > similar meetings. > > a) This is also crucially important. Robert seems to have some good > suggestions towards resolving the problem. > > b) In the case of the nominations process for the new MAG it would be > interesting to discover how far the funding issue inhibited nominations. > For myself I was initially interested in submitting a self-nomination. The > Caribbean is woefully silent in the international arena, and I have a > degree of credibility in the region in the Internet Governance field which, > to an extent, crosses the language lines which tend to divide us. However > when the funding issue came up I gave up. > > I am grateful to the many agencies - DiploFoundation, the International > Telecommunications Union, the Government of Canada, the Commonwealth > Secretariat, LACNIC, the Caribbean Telecommunications Union - who have > facilitated my attendance at regional and international IGF meetings since > Hyderabad in 2008, and to the British development Division, British Airways > and ICANN who made it possible for me to attend earlier international > meetings in this field. However I funded myself to attend the Vilnius IGF > in 2010, and I 'attended' Nairobi remotely last year. Self-funding is > currently out of the question and I don't have an institutional affiliation > that might help with funding so I didn't make a submission. That's not to > suggest that anyone would have wanted to select me, but simply to document > what may have influenced the nomination situation for several people. > > c) Coming out of this, and while agreeing entirely with a need for face > to face meetings, excellent quality in the provision for remote > participation would make this particular playing field more level and would > help to equip all of the team members with football boots. The developing > world seems to spend a lot of its time trying to play barefoot when > everyone else has studs. > > and > > 3. I would like to say a public thank you to Izumi especially and to > others who have done the same thing for his/their excellent real time > reporting of meetings attended. Obviously this can't happen from a closed > meeting. > > Deirdre > > > On 11 February 2012 08:54, parminder wrote: > >> Avri/ All >> >> I am proposing a token/ symbolic walk out, with walk-out-ers returning >> after an hour or so. This is to start setting the stage for a possible >> larger boycott if things simply do not improve. I do not know what else you >> have in mind for setting the stage foe a possible symbolic walkout after a >> few months. I dont see anyone taking any notice of anything less then what >> I propose (will be great even if they take note of this). >> >> The problem is that in the typical market/ busies thinking dominated IG >> environment, funding participation looks like a 'well-of course' kind of a >> side issue, not a central and necessary feature of improving participation >> (MSism). And we need to do something which attempts to make the point clear >> that it is a necessary feature of improving participation, and the whole >> thing can be considered a sham without it. Only something like a symbolic >> walk out may make some people start thinking, well, they seem to be rather >> agitated, so lets see what they are trying to convey etc.... >> >> At the GW on IGF Improvements, we tried to be as dramatic as possible, >> read out a very forceful statement, and this was a small group of which we >> were designated members, and the exclusions of those who could not attend >> was also starkly clear. But no one took notice, no one really responded or >> even sympathised and proceedings went off like normal. Point is; they dont >> think it to be central MS issue. We must place it there. >> >> Perhaps most importantly, if we can have some action in the MAG/ open >> consultations there is a chance that this issue can be strongly brought up >> in the WG on IGF improvements, and the CS members present make it a non >> negotiable thing that the final report clearly writes down in its report >> that CS participation in MAG etc has to be ensured with regular UN budget >> and long term commitments of voluntary funds. If this thing does not go >> into the report now then CS will always be at the mercy on how the things >> stand at the moment. This fact brings special urgency to the issue >> >> (When i said time for letters is over, i meant time for 'just' writing >> letters is over.) >> >> Parminder >> >> On Saturday 11 February 2012 05:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. >> >> I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared >> >> And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. >> >> Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. >> >> >> If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. >> >> avri >> >> On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi All >> >> While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. >> >> In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). >> >> Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! >> >> Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. >> >> And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: >> >> The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. >> >> If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. >> >> Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. >> >> (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >> >> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >> >> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >> >> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >> >> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >> >> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >> >> Best, >> >> Miguel >> >> Disclaimer >> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >> >> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >> >> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >> >> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 16:04:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:04:49 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> <4F366500.2050702@itforchange.net> <4F369DC5.2090305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All, For those intending to meet in Geneva or to remotely participate, please fill in the short online survey that Robert created and fill in the form so that Robert can summarise and send to us the results. Please feel visit the URL below and complete the form. http://goo.gl/3SKDM Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Parminder, > Somewhere towards the end of the discussion about the MAG nominations I > got the idea - and it's very possible that I misunderstood something but it > seemed clear enough to me at the time to stop me - that in making the > nominations, and subsequently in the consideration for selection, the > nominee's having institutional backing to provide funding support was going > to be important. That being the case I changed my mind. The argument made > pragmatic sense to me - there need to be people chosen who are able to > attend all of the meetings. It would be arrogant and stupid, particularly > to SELF nominate, to represent a constituency with no clear idea of where > the plane fare was coming from. Why waste the time and energy of the NOMCOM? > > I think it is very important now to establish clearly whatever link exists > between non-attendance at meetings and funding problems. > > I also still wonder why those seats made vacant by resignations were not > filled at the time, particularly considering the apparent importance given > to the issue of 'diversity' in the profile of the MAG group. Particularly > in circumstances where the people who resigned were all women. > > I'll see if I can find the messages I refer to. > > Meanwhile best wishes and good luck to those people who will be present at > the meeting in Geneva, to the new nominees, and to those who are finally > selected > > Deirdre > > > On 11 February 2012 12:56, parminder wrote: > >> ** >> Deirdre >> >> I am rather concerned by reading in your email that you wanted to but did >> not offer self nomination for MAG because 'the funding issue came up'. I >> am not aware of any such issue. Was the possibility of self funding ever >> made an an issue for nominating oneself or anyone else to MAG? I request >> specific response to this query by anyone who may have knowledge about it. >> >> BTW, it is fact that on a few earlier occasions, almost over the entire >> last one year, developing country CS members of the MAG did not attend >> because funding was not made available and I am sure the same is the reason >> this time about their non attendence. As to why they havent complained, and >> also no one else made such an issue of it here, is perhaps because this >> practice is now getting normalised, which is what we must act urgently >> against. the proof of such problematic 'normalization' of this practise is >> also evident from the fact that the impression reached you that you should >> not self nominate if you are not sure about funding yourself. >> >> I think this is a serious issue for IGC's consideration. Is this the kind >> of civil society representation that we are comfortable with? >> >> I now leave it to others to take this forward if there is a sentiment >> strong enough in its favour. >> >> parminder >> >> On Saturday 11 February 2012 08:15 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Dear Everyone, >> >> Reading the string of messages I am 'hearing' several issues which seem >> to be being conflated and which might be resolved more easily if handled >> separately? >> >> 1. The critical issue of the few civil society representatives able to >> attend the MAG meeting this week coming. >> >> a) This is partly the result of people having resigned without their >> places being filled. Is there a process to address this circumstance? If >> not why not? If there is, why didn't it happen at the time? And why didn't >> we raise the issue then - or did we? >> >> b) In the case of existing representatives who can't attend none of >> them has suggested that lack of funding is what is preventing their >> attendance. If the problem is in fact lack of funding then they should >> state this FAST. >> >> c) In the absence of lack of funding as the issue preventing people >> from attending this meeting then I don't agree with the idea of 'walking >> out'. >> >> 2. Funding arrangement for civil society representatives at the MAG and >> similar meetings. >> >> a) This is also crucially important. Robert seems to have some good >> suggestions towards resolving the problem. >> >> b) In the case of the nominations process for the new MAG it would be >> interesting to discover how far the funding issue inhibited nominations. >> For myself I was initially interested in submitting a self-nomination. The >> Caribbean is woefully silent in the international arena, and I have a >> degree of credibility in the region in the Internet Governance field which, >> to an extent, crosses the language lines which tend to divide us. However >> when the funding issue came up I gave up. >> >> I am grateful to the many agencies - DiploFoundation, the International >> Telecommunications Union, the Government of Canada, the Commonwealth >> Secretariat, LACNIC, the Caribbean Telecommunications Union - who have >> facilitated my attendance at regional and international IGF meetings since >> Hyderabad in 2008, and to the British development Division, British Airways >> and ICANN who made it possible for me to attend earlier international >> meetings in this field. However I funded myself to attend the Vilnius IGF >> in 2010, and I 'attended' Nairobi remotely last year. Self-funding is >> currently out of the question and I don't have an institutional affiliation >> that might help with funding so I didn't make a submission. That's not to >> suggest that anyone would have wanted to select me, but simply to document >> what may have influenced the nomination situation for several people. >> >> c) Coming out of this, and while agreeing entirely with a need for face >> to face meetings, excellent quality in the provision for remote >> participation would make this particular playing field more level and would >> help to equip all of the team members with football boots. The developing >> world seems to spend a lot of its time trying to play barefoot when >> everyone else has studs. >> >> and >> >> 3. I would like to say a public thank you to Izumi especially and to >> others who have done the same thing for his/their excellent real time >> reporting of meetings attended. Obviously this can't happen from a closed >> meeting. >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 11 February 2012 08:54, parminder wrote: >> >>> Avri/ All >>> >>> I am proposing a token/ symbolic walk out, with walk-out-ers returning >>> after an hour or so. This is to start setting the stage for a possible >>> larger boycott if things simply do not improve. I do not know what else you >>> have in mind for setting the stage foe a possible symbolic walkout after a >>> few months. I dont see anyone taking any notice of anything less then what >>> I propose (will be great even if they take note of this). >>> >>> The problem is that in the typical market/ busies thinking dominated IG >>> environment, funding participation looks like a 'well-of course' kind of a >>> side issue, not a central and necessary feature of improving participation >>> (MSism). And we need to do something which attempts to make the point clear >>> that it is a necessary feature of improving participation, and the whole >>> thing can be considered a sham without it. Only something like a symbolic >>> walk out may make some people start thinking, well, they seem to be rather >>> agitated, so lets see what they are trying to convey etc.... >>> >>> At the GW on IGF Improvements, we tried to be as dramatic as possible, >>> read out a very forceful statement, and this was a small group of which we >>> were designated members, and the exclusions of those who could not attend >>> was also starkly clear. But no one took notice, no one really responded or >>> even sympathised and proceedings went off like normal. Point is; they dont >>> think it to be central MS issue. We must place it there. >>> >>> Perhaps most importantly, if we can have some action in the MAG/ open >>> consultations there is a chance that this issue can be strongly brought up >>> in the WG on IGF improvements, and the CS members present make it a non >>> negotiable thing that the final report clearly writes down in its report >>> that CS participation in MAG etc has to be ensured with regular UN budget >>> and long term commitments of voluntary funds. If this thing does not go >>> into the report now then CS will always be at the mercy on how the things >>> stand at the moment. This fact brings special urgency to the issue >>> >>> (When i said time for letters is over, i meant time for 'just' writing >>> letters is over.) >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> On Saturday 11 February 2012 05:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. >>> >>> I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared >>> >>> And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. >>> >>> Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. >>> >>> >>> If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. >>> >>> In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). >>> >>> Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! >>> >>> Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. >>> >>> And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: >>> >>> The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. >>> >>> If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. >>> >>> Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. >>> >>> (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >>> >>> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >>> >>> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >>> >>> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >>> >>> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >>> >>> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> Disclaimer >>> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >>> >>> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >>> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >>> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >>> >>> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >>> >>> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 16:07:12 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:37:12 -0430 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <4F3699C5.6060007@itforchange.net> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA37@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F3699C5.6060007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, A current controversy, such as CS funding and representation on the MAG should be publicised and addressed in an open, transparent and constructive manner. Right now, we see the example of the SOPA/ACTA wave. If you are following the news about the ACTA-protest in Europe, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16999497 you might agree that the main criticism of ACTA is its deficit of legitimacy: its lack of inclusion and transparency, its denial of alternate positions. Multistakeholder issues are similar, and as strongly rooted. The IGC's action at this moment in IG policy history is critical and should be constructively aimed at supporting the IGF. The current situation of the IGF is a mix of inertia and policy fatigue. This wake-up call should remind all stakeholders that we need the IGF now, more than ever before, and that a renewed and strengthened IGF is in the interest of most stakeholders. We must communicate better, not only in the interest of CS, but also of the IGF and ultimately of the Internet itself. The Internet is still trying to find the place to discuss its policy issues. Venues are constantly changing and even competing. Our best option is to use a renewed and strengthened IGF as a central forum. In this context, while the IGC and CS action will address the issue of CS financial support it may be also serve as a catalyst for a call to action in support of the IGF. Practically speaking, there have been several good ideas. Miguel and Parminder propose an effective declaration without being combative (controversial, yes, but not aggressive). If CS reads a statement at the beginning of the MAG meeting, including an emphasis that a meeting that does not include Civil Society is not a Multistakeholder meeting, and then walks out for a stipulated time, that establishes a strong position. The constructive tone of our declaration should be aimed at solutions. I think that this symbolic gesture should be openly planned during the OC, and that clear consensus by CS is necessary or this will not work. I have pasted below an excerpt from an ISOC statement that offers support and foundation. Other organisations should be invited to sign on. Business and other stakeholders should be directly invited to join and support this demonstration. As soon as a coherent strategy is formed, press releases, statements, blogs, tweets and Facebook events can and should be organized and implemented by Civil Society and its supporters. I am willing to help coordinate online support through blogs, FB and Twitter. I think likewise, that there must be a Geneva strategy and coordination. I leave this to other colleagues who will be in Geneva. Agreement is important, so we must hear other voices. What do you all think? Ginger ISOC: We strongly believe that policies and legal norms regarding the Internet and its use (including the enforcement of intellectual property on the Internet) should be should be developed with the full and active participation of all stakeholders in an open and transparent manner, consistent with paragraph 8 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society [i] . We also believe that supporting the ratification of an internationally binding agreement on matters of “Internet governance” that was not developed in an open, transparent and inclusive manner sets a bad precedent and risks undermining confidence in the European political system. Source: http://internetsociety.org/internet-societys-letter-dated-honourable-members-european-parliament-february-2012 On 11 February 2012 12:09, parminder wrote: > ** > Hi Wolfgang, > > On Saturday 11 February 2012 06:10 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > 1+ Avri is right. It needs more preparations, a strategy, > > > what kind of preparations, and and what strategy, pl provide some details, > > reasonable alternative proposals. > > > and what alternative proposals have you in mind. Alternative to what. I am > seeking clear commitment for core funding, from regular UN funding plus > long term committed voluntary funding, to always include funding for CS > participation in MAG and this should not be left to the elements as has > been for more than a year now. > > May would be nuch more effective than February. Than we have also the Report from the CSTD WG. > > > > As mentioned in my earlier email, I think we need to make this issue as > visible as possible *right* *now* so that we can get it inscribed into > the WG report. This is by far our best opportunity. Any time later will be > too late for this purpose. > > Parminder > > > w > > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Sa 11.02.2012 13:18 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] > > > > Hi, > > While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. > > I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared > > And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. > > Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. > > > If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. > > avri > > On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: > > > > Hi All > > While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. > > In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). > > Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! > > Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. > > And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: > > The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. > > If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. > > Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. > > (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) > > Parminder > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > > > Dear All, > > I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. > > CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. > > The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. > > I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. > > I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. > > If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. > > Best, > > Miguel > > Disclaimer > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes > > Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be > noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT > projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. > > This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. > > Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). > -- > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 11 17:21:56 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:21:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> <4F366500.2050702@itforchange.net> <4F369DC5.2090305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <-7730634287649373562@unknownmsgid> Sala, Thanks for the reminder about the form. Yes, do ask anyone who wants to follow the meeting to complete t form. Last I checked this morning only 5 persons had completed the form. No doubt more then just 5 members of CS are attending th consultation (either virtually or in person). Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos or brevity. On 2012-02-11, at 4:05 PM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: Dear All, For those intending to meet in Geneva or to remotely participate, please fill in the short online survey that Robert created and fill in the form so that Robert can summarise and send to us the results. Please feel visit the URL below and complete the form. http://goo.gl/3SKDM Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Parminder, > Somewhere towards the end of the discussion about the MAG nominations I > got the idea - and it's very possible that I misunderstood something but it > seemed clear enough to me at the time to stop me - that in making the > nominations, and subsequently in the consideration for selection, the > nominee's having institutional backing to provide funding support was going > to be important. That being the case I changed my mind. The argument made > pragmatic sense to me - there need to be people chosen who are able to > attend all of the meetings. It would be arrogant and stupid, particularly > to SELF nominate, to represent a constituency with no clear idea of where > the plane fare was coming from. Why waste the time and energy of the NOMCOM? > > I think it is very important now to establish clearly whatever link exists > between non-attendance at meetings and funding problems. > > I also still wonder why those seats made vacant by resignations were not > filled at the time, particularly considering the apparent importance given > to the issue of 'diversity' in the profile of the MAG group. Particularly > in circumstances where the people who resigned were all women. > > I'll see if I can find the messages I refer to. > > Meanwhile best wishes and good luck to those people who will be present at > the meeting in Geneva, to the new nominees, and to those who are finally > selected > > Deirdre > > > On 11 February 2012 12:56, parminder wrote: > >> ** >> Deirdre >> >> I am rather concerned by reading in your email that you wanted to but did >> not offer self nomination for MAG because 'the funding issue came up'. I >> am not aware of any such issue. Was the possibility of self funding ever >> made an an issue for nominating oneself or anyone else to MAG? I request >> specific response to this query by anyone who may have knowledge about it. >> >> BTW, it is fact that on a few earlier occasions, almost over the entire >> last one year, developing country CS members of the MAG did not attend >> because funding was not made available and I am sure the same is the reason >> this time about their non attendence. As to why they havent complained, and >> also no one else made such an issue of it here, is perhaps because this >> practice is now getting normalised, which is what we must act urgently >> against. the proof of such problematic 'normalization' of this practise is >> also evident from the fact that the impression reached you that you should >> not self nominate if you are not sure about funding yourself. >> >> I think this is a serious issue for IGC's consideration. Is this the kind >> of civil society representation that we are comfortable with? >> >> I now leave it to others to take this forward if there is a sentiment >> strong enough in its favour. >> >> parminder >> >> On Saturday 11 February 2012 08:15 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Dear Everyone, >> >> Reading the string of messages I am 'hearing' several issues which seem >> to be being conflated and which might be resolved more easily if handled >> separately? >> >> 1. The critical issue of the few civil society representatives able to >> attend the MAG meeting this week coming. >> >> a) This is partly the result of people having resigned without their >> places being filled. Is there a process to address this circumstance? If >> not why not? If there is, why didn't it happen at the time? And why didn't >> we raise the issue then - or did we? >> >> b) In the case of existing representatives who can't attend none of >> them has suggested that lack of funding is what is preventing their >> attendance. If the problem is in fact lack of funding then they should >> state this FAST. >> >> c) In the absence of lack of funding as the issue preventing people >> from attending this meeting then I don't agree with the idea of 'walking >> out'. >> >> 2. Funding arrangement for civil society representatives at the MAG and >> similar meetings. >> >> a) This is also crucially important. Robert seems to have some good >> suggestions towards resolving the problem. >> >> b) In the case of the nominations process for the new MAG it would be >> interesting to discover how far the funding issue inhibited nominations. >> For myself I was initially interested in submitting a self-nomination. The >> Caribbean is woefully silent in the international arena, and I have a >> degree of credibility in the region in the Internet Governance field which, >> to an extent, crosses the language lines which tend to divide us. However >> when the funding issue came up I gave up. >> >> I am grateful to the many agencies - DiploFoundation, the International >> Telecommunications Union, the Government of Canada, the Commonwealth >> Secretariat, LACNIC, the Caribbean Telecommunications Union - who have >> facilitated my attendance at regional and international IGF meetings since >> Hyderabad in 2008, and to the British development Division, British Airways >> and ICANN who made it possible for me to attend earlier international >> meetings in this field. However I funded myself to attend the Vilnius IGF >> in 2010, and I 'attended' Nairobi remotely last year. Self-funding is >> currently out of the question and I don't have an institutional affiliation >> that might help with funding so I didn't make a submission. That's not to >> suggest that anyone would have wanted to select me, but simply to document >> what may have influenced the nomination situation for several people. >> >> c) Coming out of this, and while agreeing entirely with a need for face >> to face meetings, excellent quality in the provision for remote >> participation would make this particular playing field more level and would >> help to equip all of the team members with football boots. The developing >> world seems to spend a lot of its time trying to play barefoot when >> everyone else has studs. >> >> and >> >> 3. I would like to say a public thank you to Izumi especially and to >> others who have done the same thing for his/their excellent real time >> reporting of meetings attended. Obviously this can't happen from a closed >> meeting. >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 11 February 2012 08:54, parminder wrote: >> >>> Avri/ All >>> >>> I am proposing a token/ symbolic walk out, with walk-out-ers returning >>> after an hour or so. This is to start setting the stage for a possible >>> larger boycott if things simply do not improve. I do not know what else you >>> have in mind for setting the stage foe a possible symbolic walkout after a >>> few months. I dont see anyone taking any notice of anything less then what >>> I propose (will be great even if they take note of this). >>> >>> The problem is that in the typical market/ busies thinking dominated IG >>> environment, funding participation looks like a 'well-of course' kind of a >>> side issue, not a central and necessary feature of improving participation >>> (MSism). And we need to do something which attempts to make the point clear >>> that it is a necessary feature of improving participation, and the whole >>> thing can be considered a sham without it. Only something like a symbolic >>> walk out may make some people start thinking, well, they seem to be rather >>> agitated, so lets see what they are trying to convey etc.... >>> >>> At the GW on IGF Improvements, we tried to be as dramatic as possible, >>> read out a very forceful statement, and this was a small group of which we >>> were designated members, and the exclusions of those who could not attend >>> was also starkly clear. But no one took notice, no one really responded or >>> even sympathised and proceedings went off like normal. Point is; they dont >>> think it to be central MS issue. We must place it there. >>> >>> Perhaps most importantly, if we can have some action in the MAG/ open >>> consultations there is a chance that this issue can be strongly brought up >>> in the WG on IGF improvements, and the CS members present make it a non >>> negotiable thing that the final report clearly writes down in its report >>> that CS participation in MAG etc has to be ensured with regular UN budget >>> and long term commitments of voluntary funds. If this thing does not go >>> into the report now then CS will always be at the mercy on how the things >>> stand at the moment. This fact brings special urgency to the issue >>> >>> (When i said time for letters is over, i meant time for 'just' writing >>> letters is over.) >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> On Saturday 11 February 2012 05:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. >>> >>> I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared >>> >>> And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. >>> >>> Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. >>> >>> >>> If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. >>> >>> In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). >>> >>> Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! >>> >>> Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. >>> >>> And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: >>> >>> The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. >>> >>> If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. >>> >>> Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. >>> >>> (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >>> >>> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >>> >>> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >>> >>> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >>> >>> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >>> >>> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> Disclaimer >>> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >>> >>> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >>> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >>> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >>> >>> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >>> >>> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 11 22:42:00 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:12:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <7AB7A8D7-8210-4CA8-B01D-A06F1DE03221@privaterra.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <7AB7A8D7-8210-4CA8-B01D-A06F1DE03221@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <4F373508.9000408@itforchange.net> Robert On Saturday 11 February 2012 07:08 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Parminder, > > I don't agree with a walk out over the lack of financial support to > participate. I only asked for a symbolic walkout, not a boycott of the session. It would simply have been an expression of solidarity by those who are able to make to the meeting on their own funds with those are not able to do so. And hopefully, the event would help raise the visibility of this issue, which for me and many of us in the South is at the heart of multistakeholderism. And hopefully, this would have allowed those in the WG on IGF improvements to insist that the WG report makes the necessary provision. > > The current economic situation is such that funding of any kind is > hard to obtain. Things will only get worse over the course of the next > 2 years. That is a lame excuse and we can do better than to fall prey to it. What economic situation are you talking about? Why has this bad situation not affected private funding for attendees? Why does it only affect public funding? Every two months or so a large conference seems to get held in the North on IG issues? Why doesnt the economic conditions affect this sudden rash of IG meetings and conferences? Ensuring committed funding for MAG CS members is what, about 30 international tickets and the cost of a few days each of stay in a year. Even a small university and many NGOs hold a few meetings every year which will entail such costs, what to speak of governments and businesses. So lets be a little less patronising on this key and central issue of global governance. NO, these 30 tickets is not the issue. The issue is the deeper political economy equation whereby representative global governance systems are sought to be increasingly undermined in favour of private/ business led governance systems, where the seats are allocated according to ones' existing power. We from the South say a loud and clear NO to this creeping acquisition. This is the primary issue in contention here. And by 'seeking alternative funds' I understand one means looking for funds provided by businesses and other institutions that have pre-committed ideology (like all of us) and their funding is steeped in conditions that arise from this all but natural context. Sorry, I dont see these 'alternative sources' as the replacement of the needed public funds that are sina qua non of improving the participation of those who are otherwise marginalised from these spaces. It for the IGC to decide what stand it wants or does not want to take on this issue, but lets not confuse/shift issues. parminder > We need to stay engaged. At this point in time, I think the meeting > will just continue without us. > > I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a strategic effort on behalf > of those on this list to develop speaking points well in advance of > the meeting. We should work with those attending to make a strong > statement and concurrently aggressively seek alternate sources of > funding to support CS engagement. Walking away, is in my opinion, is > not the best action at this moment in time. > > Robert > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-11, at 1:15 AM, parminder wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that >> some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal >> at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to >> the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but >> not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal >> versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) >> versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants >> substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. >> >> In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we >> become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this >> whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. >> The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will >> neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem >> to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in >> multistakeholderism). >> >> Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was >> surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to >> CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. >> We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the >> secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder >> countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could >> be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took >> this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's >> statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS >> participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! >> >> Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding >> issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees >> etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be >> offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about >> it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for *CS >> participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism >> that doesnt include this. * >> >> And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I >> suggest, is as follows: >> >> The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 >> hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance >> in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on >> their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember >> that is is not multistakeholder; the *most* important part of >> non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell >> them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will >> have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the >> whole IG process. >> >> If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open >> consultations. >> >> Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF >> meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and >> insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to >> regular UN funds (/plus/ long term committed voluntary funds) that >> always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend >> possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these >> meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG >> meeting to stress the point. >> >> (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw >> some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: >>> CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall >>> financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >>> >>> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the >>> Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending >>> CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >>> >>> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of >>> the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for >>> the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG >>> process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in >>> person to the SG. >>> >>> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its >>> financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN >>> regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >>> >>> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all >>> actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can >>> present a better case from inside the process. >>> >>> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way >>> respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before >>> making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to >>> advocate its positions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> Disclaimer >>> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of >>> my employer or any other institution. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> In message >>> >> >, at 10:03:09 on Fri, >>> 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe >> > writes >>> >>> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, >>> it should be >>> noted that civil society plays a major role in the >>> implementation of ICT >>> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber >>> crime. >>> >>> >>> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free >>> advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even >>> for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include >>> just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >>> >>> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a >>> conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't >>> currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of >>> (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >>> -- >>> 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 tracey at traceynaughton.com Sun Feb 12 02:11:34 2012 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:11:34 +1100 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA36@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA36@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <068EBDAD-A54A-40F4-A5B4-54FB67859441@traceynaughton.com> Wolfgang, So glad you are there to remember past achievements. So sorry to hear you are in hospital. Go well, Tracey Naughton On 11 Feb 2012, at 8:45 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Hi all, there is an example where we can refer to. During the PrepComs of the WSIS (202 - 2005), there was a special WSIS Civil Society Bureau (managed by Alain and Louise) which was funded by the overall WSIS budget. This was not a small budget but it enabled CS participation in PrepComs. The elected CS Bureau (about 11 membersrepresenting so-called "CS families") had to manage the applications for CS funding. This was a transparent process. The problem now is that the WSIS was part of the regular UN/ITU budget, the IGF is not. The compromise of the "unloved" IGF, reached in Tunis, was that the okay for the IGF was based on the condition that there will be no extra funding from the regular UN budget. Okay time has changed and the funding issue is under consideration in the UNCSTD IGF Improvement WG. My position is that we should call for a "mixed funding" on a sustainable basis (some core functions financed by the UN budget, extra voluntary funding from member states and private corporations, including ICANN but also Facebook, Gogle etc. (based on a five year voluntary commitment). This remains a key issue for the forthcming 5th meeting of the group end of February in geneva (just the other week after MAG). For the moment Parminders approach to have a two hour "visible walk out" to protest has its merits. But if we do this, we need a more comprehensive approach. A "walk out" has to be embedded into a mix of complementary actions as a letter to the USG, a letter to the IGF Secretariat, a letter to the Chair if the MAG meeting (the Azeri Minister) and a press release. People n Geneva should organize a special press briefing (on Wednesday or Thursday noon) and invite the press people accredited in Geneva. It would make sense also to talk in advance to friendly governments and friendly private corporations which support the CS outcry and to invite them to participate in the press briefing (or at least to give verbal support). Best wishes wolfgang (still in the hospital) ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Miguel Alcaine Gesendet: Fr 10.02.2012 15:28 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] Dear All, I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: In message >, at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 12 04:54:48 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (william.drake at uzh.ch) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:54:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net>, <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi It is clear that neither within the caucus generally nor among attendees particularly has there been a groundswell of support for a walkout. We are, once again, a group with diverse viewpoints, and confronting people to demand explanations of dared deviations from somebody's preferred norm serves no constructive purpose. The simple and most democratic solution is for people to act in accordance with their views and convictions. Anyone who feels that a walk out is a statement they want to make should act accordingly, and anyone who is unconvinced that this would look sensible or be effective should stay and try a bit of persuasion and soft power. In fact, the two approaches could work in a synergistic way to strengthen the case. Of course, retuning after an hour or whatever may undercut the seriousness of the walking half of the strategy---when governments periodically storm out of General Assembly speech I don't think they just go for a coffee and then return before the speaker has finished. But that's for the walkers to decide. I also would suggest that in making the case, it might be preferable to stick to outlining the depth of the problem (aggregated numbers on CS MAG non attendance due to funding would be a plus) and its consequences for both the legitimacy of the IGF's ballyhooed MSism and governance and for meeting programs (if applicable), rather than trying to put forward particular solutions about which we've had little discussion. Or if solutions are proposed, it should be indicated that thèse are examples of thé kinds of steps peuple are thinking about, not that we have actual consensus on any one, when we don't yet. Two cents, Bill -----Avri Doria wrote: ----- ======================= To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org From: Avri Doria Date: 02/11/2012 01:19PM Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] ======================= Hi, While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. avri On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. > > In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). > > Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! > > Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. > > And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: > > The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. > > If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. > > Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. > > (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) > > Parminder > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >> >> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >> >> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >> >> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >> >> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >> >> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >> >> Best, >> >> Miguel >> >> Disclaimer >> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >> >> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >> >> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >> >> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >> -- >> 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Feb 12 05:20:40 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:20:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> <4F366500.2050702@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <61InP3U4J5NPFAqP@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 10:45:38 on Sat, 11 Feb 2012, Deirdre Williams writes >1. The critical issue of the few civil society representatives able to >attend the MAG meeting this week coming. > >a) This is partly the result of people having resigned without their >places being filled. Is there a process to address this circumstance? The only "replacement" process I can see in place is when certain government seats are passed on to another individual from the same country. >If not why not? If there is, why didn't it happen at the time? For whatever reason (and I don't mean to imply any blame) there have only been three "generations" of MAG, the original one from 2006, a 1/3 rotation done in 2007 and another 1/3 rotation done in 2009. We are, of course, about to get a 2/3 rotation in 2012. As a result, the eight individuals named by Bill Drake, two have already served for 6yrs, four for 5yrs, and two for 3yrs. It's no surprise that some of them feel that they've "done their time" and wish to move on, and with all of them potentially being rotated off, I would expect this current meeting to have somewhat of an "end of term" feel about it. -- 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 iza at anr.org Sun Feb 12 07:11:04 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:11:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> Message-ID: Thank you Bill, Avri, Parminder and all who commented so far. As Bill have written, it is difficult to see any potential to reach consensus as IGC before the MAG open consultation meeting. But that does not mean the issue of funding support and the lack thereof. I think taking this opportunity, we need to come up with better-organized strategy from this meeting and then to May consultation, WSIS Forum, all the way to IGF in November. Sorry for not sparing more time for the MAG/CSTD meeting preparation myself, and I will try to work hard there to organize meetings, even with logistical constraints. In addition to the Tuedsay morning meeting, I like to explore more meetings during the week, say after the formal meetings in the (early) evenings, at least. izumi 2012/2/12 : > >  Hi > > It is clear that neither within the caucus generally nor among attendees particularly has there been a groundswell of support for a walkout.  We are, once again, a group with diverse viewpoints, and confronting people to demand explanations of dared deviations from somebody's preferred norm serves no constructive purpose.  The simple and most democratic solution is for people to act in accordance with their views and convictions.  Anyone who feels that a walk out is a statement they want to make should act accordingly, and anyone who is unconvinced that this would look sensible or be effective should stay and try a bit of persuasion and soft power.  In fact, the two approaches could work in a synergistic way to strengthen the case.  Of course, retuning after an hour or whatever may undercut the seriousness of the walking half of the strategy---when governments periodically  storm out of General Assembly speech I don't think they just go for a coffee and then return before the speaker has finished.  But that's for the walkers to decide. > > I also would suggest that in making the case, it might be preferable to stick to outlining the depth of the problem (aggregated numbers on CS MAG non attendance due to funding would be a plus) and its consequences for both the legitimacy of the IGF's ballyhooed MSism and governance and for meeting programs (if applicable), rather than trying to put forward particular solutions about which we've had little discussion.  Or if solutions are proposed, it should be indicated  that thèse are examples of thé kinds of steps peuple are thinking about, not that we have  actual consensus on any one, when we don't yet. > > Two cents, > > Bill > > -----Avri Doria wrote: ----- > >  ======================= >  To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >  From: Avri Doria >  Date: 02/11/2012 01:19PM >  Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] >  ======================= >   Hi, > > While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts.  As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken.  But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built.  Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. > > I do not think the time for letters is ever over.  Even if a walk out is being prepared > > And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. > > Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about.  The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there.  Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time.  I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. > > > If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make.  Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention.  First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. > > avri > > On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: > >> Hi All >> >> While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. >> >> In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist  avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). >> >> Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! >> >> Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. >> >> And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: >> >> The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. >> >> If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. >> >> Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. >> >> (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >>> >>> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >>> >>> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >>> >>> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >>> >>> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >>> >>> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Miguel >>> >>> Disclaimer >>> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >>> >>> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >>> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >>> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >>> >>> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >>> >>> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >>> -- >>> 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 22:02:19 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:02:19 +0600 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] 'The Economist' And 'Financial Times' Already Writing Off ACTA As Dead Message-ID: <803A4493BD1F457290C30839EBB84D82@UserVAIO> -----Original Message----- From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 7:56 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] 'The Economist' And 'Financial Times' Already Writing Off ACTA As Dead ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Dewayne Hendricks" Date: Feb 10, 2012 8:27 PM Subject: [Dewayne-Net] 'The Economist' And 'Financial Times' Already Writing Off ACTA As Dead To: "Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net" 'The Economist' And 'Financial Times' Already Writing Off ACTA As Dead from the let's-put-it-out-of-its-misery dept By Glyn Moody Feb 10, 2012 In the last few days, we've seen an extraordinary wave of announcements by governments in Europe, particularly its eastern part, that they would not be ratifying ACTA immediately. That sequence of events, culminating in today's news that Germany, too, would be holding off, has suddenly made lots of people sit up and take notice. But even against that tumultuous background, few of us would have expected that two of the most serious business publications in Europe, The Economist and Financial Times, would both go much further than simply noting the problems the treaty now faces, and declare that ACTA is pretty much dead. Under the headline "ACTA up", The Economist says: "Protests across Europe may kill an anti-piracy treaty", and points out: "Internet activists used to be dismissed as a bunch of hairy mouse-clickers with little clout. Not any more." The Financial Times' headline is "Latest pact on internet piracy set to be derailed", and the post makes an explicit connection with SOPA and PIPA: A controversial international trade agreement, which campaigners fear would restrict internet freedom looks likely to be delayed or scrapped, the latest in a string of measures planned to combat online piracy to falter in the face of co-ordinated protests. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now !DSPAM:2676,4f35cb826905927812421! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 13 03:54:10 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:54:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC IGF 2012 Consultation Survey Message-ID: Attached and below is a summary of the IGC IGF Feb 2012 Open Consultation survey results. Data current as of 9:53am Geneva Time , Feb 13th. regards Robert Count of Will you be attending the upcoming IGF Open Consultation & Open MAG meeting in Geneva Row Labels Total No 1 Online 1 possibly attending-time availability 2 Yes 1 Yes, attending in person 3 Yes, attending virtually 3 Grand Total 11 Count of When will you arrive in Geneva Row Labels Total online 1 12-02-12 3 12-02-13 2 12-02-14 1 (blank) Grand Total 7 Count of Are you currently a member of the MAG ? Row Labels Total No 8 Yes - Term has not yet expired 2 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What stakeholder group will you be registered as at the consultation. Row Labels Total Civil Society (NGO+Academia) 8 special adviser to the Chair 1 Technical Community 1 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What region will you be registered as ? Row Labels Total Africa 1 Asia-Pacific 2 Latin American and Caribbean 3 Western European and Others 4 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of Entity and/or Organization you will be registered as Row Labels Total (Self/Diplo) 1 APC 1 Brazilian Internet Steering Committee 1 Citizen Lab, University of Toronto 1 Collectif National pour le Développement Humanitaire 1 IGC Candidate to the MAG 1 Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama Univ. 1 ISOC Finland 1 Pacific Young Professionals Training Development Forum 1 self 1 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What are best times for you to participate in pre meeting briefing ? Row Labels Total Monday Feb 13 - Afternoon (12-1800) 2 Monday Feb 13 - Evening (1800-2100) 1 Sunday Feb 12 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - Breakfast (0700-0900), Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start of consultation 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start of consultation 1 (blank) Grand Total 6 -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF 2012 -Consultation-Summary.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49527 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Mon Feb 13 04:07:25 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:07:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation / IGF Feb 2012 Open Consultation Message-ID: <8F5A9807-55D8-4251-9530-CDC45B0CD903@privaterra.org> A short note to poll members of this list on the preferred method of virtual participation for the IGF Feb 2012 Open Consultation taking place tomorrow. My suggestion is that people follow the AV feed and also participate via one or more of the options listed below. With a text chat, comments and/or interventions hopefully can be made directly to the meeting. Options suggested and/or proposed by folks on the list: 1. Group Skype chat (requires software install of skype as well as exchange of skype ID's). Happy to set this up. My skype username is - robertguerra - 2. IRC Chat There are a variety of IRC options available, suggest we use the Free & Secure crypto.cat (https://crypto.cat/) tool as no software install is required. Works on mobile devices & tablets :) A IGF 2012 channel has been created. It is available @ https://crypto.cat/?c=igf2012 Look forward to everyone's comments on this regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Mon Feb 13 04:48:11 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:48:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC IGF 2012 Consultation Survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Robert and thank you for this very important statistic. This allows us to assess and evaluate our representation and our commitment. Baudouin 2012/2/13 Robert Guerra > Attached and below is a summary of the IGC IGF Feb 2012 Open > Consultation survey results. > > Data current as of 9:53am Geneva Time , Feb 13th. > > regards > > Robert > > Count of Will you be attending the upcoming IGF Open Consultation & > Open MAG meeting in Geneva Row Labels Total No 1 Online 1 possibly > attending-time availability 2 Yes 1 Yes, attending in person 3 Yes, > attending virtually 3 Grand Total 11 Count of When will you arrive > in Geneva Row Labels Total online 1 12-02-12 3 12-02-13 2 12-02-14 > 1 (blank) Grand Total 7 Count of Are you currently a member of the > MAG ? Row Labels Total No 8 Yes - Term has not yet expired 2 (blank) Grand > Total 10 Count of What stakeholder group will you be registered as > at the consultation. Row Labels Total Civil Society (NGO+Academia) 8 special > adviser to the Chair 1 Technical Community 1 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count > of What region will you be registered as ? Row Labels Total Africa 1 > Asia-Pacific 2 Latin American and Caribbean 3 Western European and > Others 4 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of Entity and/or > Organization you will be registered as Row Labels Total (Self/Diplo) 1 > APC 1 Brazilian Internet Steering Committee 1 Citizen Lab, University > of Toronto 1 Collectif National pour le Développement Humanitaire 1 IGC > Candidate to the MAG 1 Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama Univ. 1 ISOC > Finland 1 Pacific Young Professionals Training Development Forum 1 self > 1 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What are best times for you to > participate in pre meeting briefing ? Row Labels Total Monday Feb 13 - > Afternoon (12-1800) 2 Monday Feb 13 - Evening (1800-2100) 1 Sunday Feb > 12 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - Breakfast (0700-0900), Tuesday Feb 14 - > Immediately prior to start of consultation 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - > Immediately prior to start of consultation 1 (blank) Grand Total 6 > > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Feb 13 04:57:14 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:57:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [] MAG Renewal References: Message-ID: <0F27FBD9-EBE5-4ED7-9F7E-511F11929CE8@acm.org> I guess we have already submitted. But it there was a need to change anything, we now have time. avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Chengetai MASANGO > Subject: [igf_members] MAG Renewal > Date: 13 February 2012 10:45:28 GMT+01:00 > To: igf Forum > > Dear All, > > Due to requests from stakeholders to extend the submission deadline for names for the renewal of the MAG. The submission deadline has been extended until 24 February 2012. > > I would be grateful if you could inform your respective stakeholder groups. > > Thank you and best regards > > Chengetai > > > > _______________________________________________ > igf_members mailing list > igf_members at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Feb 13 04:58:28 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:58:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> Message-ID: On 12 Feb 2012, at 13:11, Izumi AIZU wrote: > In addition to the Tuedsay morning meeting, I like to > explore more meetings during the week, say after > the formal meetings in the (early) evenings, at least. Where is this early morning meeting. And will people have had a chance to get badged and into the premisses in time? 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Feb 13 07:04:30 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:04:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: References: <4F2FA1AF.4080305@apc.org> <820006AE-ABFF-4E17-931A-E03B90EFC1A2@acm.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2CA20@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2A51A8A7-06CD-48A8-A9FF-1A6DE687F717@uzh.ch> <2A1B0A9E-F977-46DC-B3F1-D49E7ED78CCA@uzh.ch> <4F34AF70.1080606@itforchange.net> <4F34D4CE.6030504@apc.org> <4F360766.6000205@itforchange.net> <5CAB4C86-F54E-4618-93CD-DE0E4BC30F05@acm.org> Message-ID: <4F38FC4E.5060007@apc.org> My apologies for Tuesday's meeting. My flight only gets in around 10h30. Re. the walkout/protest - I would agree that unless it is well prepared with linked actions... but let's discuss face to face. Anriette On 12/02/12 14:11, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thank you Bill, Avri, Parminder and all who commented so far. > > As Bill have written, it is difficult to see any potential to > reach consensus as IGC before the MAG open consultation > meeting. But that does not mean the issue of funding support > and the lack thereof. I think taking this opportunity, we need > to come up with better-organized strategy from this meeting > and then to May consultation, WSIS Forum, all the way to > IGF in November. > > Sorry for not sparing more time for the MAG/CSTD meeting > preparation myself, and I will try to work hard there to > organize meetings, even with logistical constraints. > > In addition to the Tuedsay morning meeting, I like to > explore more meetings during the week, say after > the formal meetings in the (early) evenings, at least. > > izumi > > > > 2012/2/12 : >> >> Hi >> >> It is clear that neither within the caucus generally nor among attendees particularly has there been a groundswell of support for a walkout. We are, once again, a group with diverse viewpoints, and confronting people to demand explanations of dared deviations from somebody's preferred norm serves no constructive purpose. The simple and most democratic solution is for people to act in accordance with their views and convictions. Anyone who feels that a walk out is a statement they want to make should act accordingly, and anyone who is unconvinced that this would look sensible or be effective should stay and try a bit of persuasion and soft power. In fact, the two approaches could work in a synergistic way to strengthen the case. Of course, retuning after an hour or whatever may undercut the seriousness of the walking half of the strategy---when governments periodically storm out of General Assembly speech I don't think they just go for a coffee and then return before the speaker has finished. But that's for the walkers to decide. >> >> I also would suggest that in making the case, it might be preferable to stick to outlining the depth of the problem (aggregated numbers on CS MAG non attendance due to funding would be a plus) and its consequences for both the legitimacy of the IGF's ballyhooed MSism and governance and for meeting programs (if applicable), rather than trying to put forward particular solutions about which we've had little discussion. Or if solutions are proposed, it should be indicated that thèse are examples of thé kinds of steps peuple are thinking about, not that we have actual consensus on any one, when we don't yet. >> >> Two cents, >> >> Bill >> >> -----Avri Doria wrote: ----- >> >> ======================= >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> From: Avri Doria >> Date: 02/11/2012 01:19PM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] >> ======================= >> Hi, >> >> While I think it is important to do something about funding, I would prefer we have a more coherent plan on funding before resorting to walkouts. As far as I can tell a few letters have been sent and one or two voices have spoken. But there has been nothing in any press nor any real Internet case built. Certainly there has not been a coherent concerted effort for anyone in CS to get funding, other than the fundraising people do for their own efforts. >> >> I do not think the time for letters is ever over. Even if a walk out is being prepared >> >> And while I think there can be great value in walk out at some point, I just do not see it as being useful at this point when no one really knows what or why people would be walking out for. >> >> Personally, I think that if the few MAG members we have there walk out, work will proceed along it merry pace with perhaps some gratitude that the pesky CS people aren't bothering them with human rights and all the things only we want to talk about. The fact that those who walk are there, mean that these few had the means to get there. Additionally, if the observers make an issue of walking out, we can only hope they let observers back in the room the next time. I think a walk out has to be of the consultation. >> >> >> If we want to plan a walk out, I beleive it should come after a several month campaign that is organized and very visible, on the point we might want to make. Doing it during the last of the consultations would make a lot more sense to me then doing it without having set the stage and being prepared with press, bloggers and other media paying attention. First I think we need a coherent approach to funding, which has demonstrations and other flash once the topic is visible, which at this point, it really isn't. >> >> avri >> >> On 11 Feb 2012, at 01:15, parminder wrote: >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. >>> >>> In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). >>> >>> Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! >>> >>> Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. >>> >>> And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: >>> >>> The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. >>> >>> If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. >>> >>> Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. >>> >>> (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. >>>> >>>> CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. >>>> >>>> The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. >>>> >>>> I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. >>>> >>>> I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. >>>> >>>> If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Miguel >>>> >>>> Disclaimer >>>> My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>> In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes >>>> >>>> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >>>> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >>>> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >>>> >>>> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. >>>> >>>> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 13 10:52:38 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:52:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF briefing in Geneva / Feb Consultation Message-ID: <42420AE6-F0F2-4971-AA11-7EE82DCAEBDC@privaterra.org> Many thanks to those of you who have completed the Feb Consultation survey form. >From the looks of it, it seems that the best time to meet ahead of the meeting is - Tuesday morning before the start of the consultation. Might I suggest we all meet at the Pregny Gate at either at 8 or 8:30. That way we all walk in together and have time to brief each other , prepare key talking points we might want to raise, and share strategy. Let me know what time(s) best ... regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Feb 13 15:42:39 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:42:39 +0600 Subject: FW: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] Message-ID: <8736C90210B741DBB70B7AB226FCF284@UserVAIO> Effective governance is in large part about the perception of legitimacy. In the context of the Internet it is clear that in order for the governance processes (including those processes about process as the IGF to a considerable extent is) to have legitimacy there must be participation by the various stakeholders. Certain of the stakeholder groups notably the private sector and the technical community as supported largely by the private sector have a clear set of (financial) interests in effective governance. Governments as providing the regulatory framework within which the Internet operates clearly have set of interests in ensuring that national regulatory (and other) priorities are reflected/accommodated within the goverance structures. There is also a clear public interest in Internet governance which under other circumstances might be represented by governments but in the particular circumstances of the Internet -- because of its rapidly changing, somewhat technical and global reach -- is proving somewhat difficult to channel public interest perspectives/requirements through conventional governmental structures. This means that the public interest (or in another way the non-commercial, non-technical, non-regulatory interests of Internet users) needs to be represented in Internet Governance or the process lacks legitimacy. It is in the overall interests of the Internet and all stakeholders that Internet Governance is perceived as legitimate (note the current issues around the perceived illegitimacy of the ACTA process). Thus it is in the overall interest of Internet Governance (and the Internet Governance processes) that there is a civil society participation (the comparable OECD processes have already moved some considerable way along the path to the recognition of this. The question then becomes how to ensure funding for this process. The most appropriate and fairest way for funding such inclusion would be through taxation however, since there is no global governance mechanism through which such taxation might be enforced this is a major problem. However, a few pennies from each of the domain registrations/renewals would more than adequately fund the entire Internet Governance process including ensuring public interest participation in the MAG/IGF etc.etc. Such a contribution to orderly and effective Internet governance processes should surely be of considerable interest to those most directly concerned with ensuring an orderly and effective operation of the Internet. As per Deidre's earlier comments and other anecdotal information it would appear that there is already considerable support coming informally from that quarter for CS participation in the IGF and other Internet Governance processes. Perhaps those who have been doing this informally may wish to take a leadership in looking to formalize this process. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:42 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] Robert On Saturday 11 February 2012 07:08 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: Parminder, I don't agree with a walk out over the lack of financial support to participate. I only asked for a symbolic walkout, not a boycott of the session. It would simply have been an expression of solidarity by those who are able to make to the meeting on their own funds with those are not able to do so. And hopefully, the event would help raise the visibility of this issue, which for me and many of us in the South is at the heart of multistakeholderism. And hopefully, this would have allowed those in the WG on IGF improvements to insist that the WG report makes the necessary provision. The current economic situation is such that funding of any kind is hard to obtain. Things will only get worse over the course of the next 2 years. That is a lame excuse and we can do better than to fall prey to it. What economic situation are you talking about? Why has this bad situation not affected private funding for attendees? Why does it only affect public funding? Every two months or so a large conference seems to get held in the North on IG issues? Why doesnt the economic conditions affect this sudden rash of IG meetings and conferences? Ensuring committed funding for MAG CS members is what, about 30 international tickets and the cost of a few days each of stay in a year. Even a small university and many NGOs hold a few meetings every year which will entail such costs, what to speak of governments and businesses. So lets be a little less patronising on this key and central issue of global governance. NO, these 30 tickets is not the issue. The issue is the deeper political economy equation whereby representative global governance systems are sought to be increasingly undermined in favour of private/ business led governance systems, where the seats are allocated according to ones' existing power. We from the South say a loud and clear NO to this creeping acquisition. This is the primary issue in contention here. And by 'seeking alternative funds' I understand one means looking for funds provided by businesses and other institutions that have pre-committed ideology (like all of us) and their funding is steeped in conditions that arise from this all but natural context. Sorry, I dont see these 'alternative sources' as the replacement of the needed public funds that are sina qua non of improving the participation of those who are otherwise marginalised from these spaces. It for the IGC to decide what stand it wants or does not want to take on this issue, but lets not confuse/shift issues. parminder We need to stay engaged. At this point in time, I think the meeting will just continue without us. I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a strategic effort on behalf of those on this list to develop speaking points well in advance of the meeting. We should work with those attending to make a strong statement and concurrently aggressively seek alternate sources of funding to support CS engagement. Walking away, is in my opinion, is not the best action at this moment in time. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-11, at 1:15 AM, parminder wrote: Hi All While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a formal right to participate. In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must make our stand clear that funding for CS participation is a structural part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is as follows: The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is not multistakeholder; the most important part of non-government stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open consultations. Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (plus long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) Parminder On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: Dear All, I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue for participation in the IGF process. CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS participation regardless of being in the MAG. The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a better case from inside the process. If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its positions. Best, Miguel Disclaimer My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my employer or any other institution. On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Baudouin Schombe writes Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or Internet Governance issues. Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the sessions at ITU World). -- 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 aizu at anr.org Mon Feb 13 22:40:49 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:40:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC IGF 2012 Consultation Survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Robert, and sorry for not following up earlier. It's a pity that we could not organize a pre-meeting, but in any case, I will try to come to Palais de Nations asap, aiming 9 to 9:30 am today, and try to at least chat a while at the cafe with those who could still come. And then we can discuss more meetings during the consultation days. best, izumi 2012/2/13 Robert Guerra > Attached and below is a summary of the IGC IGF Feb 2012 Open Consultation > survey results. > > Data current as of 9:53am Geneva Time , Feb 13th. > > regards > > Robert > > Count of Will you be attending the upcoming IGF Open Consultation & > Open MAG meeting in Geneva Row Labels Total No 1 Online 1 possibly > attending-time availability 2 Yes 1 Yes, attending in person 3 Yes, > attending virtually 3 Grand Total 11 Count of When will you arrive > in Geneva Row Labels Total online 1 12-02-12 3 12-02-13 2 12-02-14 > 1 (blank) Grand Total 7 Count of Are you currently a member of the > MAG ? Row Labels Total No 8 Yes - Term has not yet expired 2 (blank) Grand > Total 10 Count of What stakeholder group will you be registered as > at the consultation. Row Labels Total Civil Society (NGO+Academia) 8 special > adviser to the Chair 1 Technical Community 1 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count > of What region will you be registered as ? Row Labels Total Africa 1 > Asia-Pacific 2 Latin American and Caribbean 3 Western European and > Others 4 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of Entity and/or > Organization you will be registered as Row Labels Total (Self/Diplo) 1 > APC 1 Brazilian Internet Steering Committee 1 Citizen Lab, University > of Toronto 1 Collectif National pour le Développement Humanitaire 1 IGC > Candidate to the MAG 1 Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama Univ. 1 ISOC > Finland 1 Pacific Young Professionals Training Development Forum 1 self > 1 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What are best times for you to > participate in pre meeting briefing ? Row Labels Total Monday Feb 13 - > Afternoon (12-1800) 2 Monday Feb 13 - Evening (1800-2100) 1 Sunday Feb > 12 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - Breakfast (0700-0900), Tuesday Feb 14 - > Immediately prior to start of consultation 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - > Immediately prior to start of consultation 1 (blank) Grand Total 6 > > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 > > -- >> 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 13 17:51:24 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:51:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] APC brief - The importance of adopting human rights as the main theme for the IGF Message-ID: <2A0DB522-FD2C-4D87-AFF1-742D7573589F@apc.org> Hello all, As an input for the IGF Open Consultation and MAG this week in Geneva, we would like to share with you all a very brief reflection from the APC about the reasons why it would be important to adopt human rights as the main theme for the IGF in 2012. Best, Valeria -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF Brief_HR as main theme_final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 137007 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 14 02:00:20 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:00:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Feb IGF Open Consultation - Update #1 Message-ID: <523754DF-8A2E-4973-8652-5ADBFC0FF258@privaterra.org> Good morning from Geneva! Start of IGF Open consultation is today. Here's some headlines before I head out to the UN for the meeting: - IGF website has been updated. - Open consultation synthesis paper summarizing contributions is finally online bit.ly/AyrOR3 - Stakeholder requests for additional time (likely govts) - extends MAG nomination deadline until 24 February 2012 - The Seventh Annual IGF Meeting will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan. Dates being mentioned are in November. Nov might prove to be a problem as Bakutel (18th Annual Azerbaijan International Telecommunications conference, 7-10Nov) is also taking place. Will Bakutel & IGF take place in the same venue at the same time? Question likely to be answered today. - Next MAG meeting will take place in May, in Geneva. Exact dates unknown as still subject to scheduling. Likely will take place close to or during WSIS forum (action item follow-up) 14-18 May. http://groups.itu.int/Default.aspx?alias=groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012 - Hashtag being used for aggregating IGF posts this week - #igf2012 - Chat space for interactive dialogue and communication - https://crypto.cat/?c=igf2012 CS briefing taking place at 9am. More details later this morning. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 04:10:21 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:10:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation / IGF Feb 2012 Open Consultation In-Reply-To: <8F5A9807-55D8-4251-9530-CDC45B0CD903@privaterra.org> References: <8F5A9807-55D8-4251-9530-CDC45B0CD903@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Thanks Robert. The webcast link doesn't seem to be working. I'm The Williams ahr4710. Deirdre By the way your message only just came through On 13 February 2012 05:07, Robert Guerra wrote: > A short note to poll members of this list on the preferred method of > virtual participation for the IGF Feb 2012 Open Consultation taking place > tomorrow. > > My suggestion is that people follow the AV feed and also participate via > one or more of the options listed below. With a text chat, comments and/or > interventions hopefully can be made directly to the meeting. > > Options suggested and/or proposed by folks on the list: > > 1. Group Skype chat (requires software install of skype as well as > exchange of skype ID's). > > Happy to set this up. My skype username is - robertguerra - > > 2. IRC Chat > > There are a variety of IRC options available, suggest we use the Free & > Secure crypto.cat (https://crypto.cat/) tool as no software install is > required. Works on mobile devices & tablets :) > > A IGF 2012 channel has been created. It is available @ > https://crypto.cat/?c=igf2012 > > > Look forward to everyone's comments on this > > regards > > Robert > > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 > > -- “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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 04:11:10 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:11:10 +1300 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation / IGF Feb 2012 Open Consultation In-Reply-To: <8F5A9807-55D8-4251-9530-CDC45B0CD903@privaterra.org> References: <8F5A9807-55D8-4251-9530-CDC45B0CD903@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Go for it Robert. This is excellent and also in terms of preparation of statements, please feel free to use the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. Go ahead and set up the Group Skype and the Chats. Best Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > A short note to poll members of this list on the preferred method of > virtual participation for the IGF Feb 2012 Open Consultation taking place > tomorrow. > > My suggestion is that people follow the AV feed and also participate via > one or more of the options listed below. With a text chat, comments and/or > interventions hopefully can be made directly to the meeting. > > Options suggested and/or proposed by folks on the list: > > 1. Group Skype chat (requires software install of skype as well as > exchange of skype ID's). > > Happy to set this up. My skype username is - robertguerra - > > 2. IRC Chat > > There are a variety of IRC options available, suggest we use the Free & > Secure crypto.cat (https://crypto.cat/) tool as no software install is > required. Works on mobile devices & tablets :) > > A IGF 2012 channel has been created. It is available @ > https://crypto.cat/?c=igf2012 > > > Look forward to everyone's comments on this > > regards > > Robert > > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 04:27:47 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:27:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC IGF 2012 Consultation Survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Help! The remote participation just doesn't seem to be working :-( Please someone make the point of how crucially important it is that the link should WORK if there is a true intention to include as many stakeholders as possible. deirdre On 13 February 2012 23:40, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thanks Robert, and sorry for not following up earlier. > > It's a pity that we could not organize a pre-meeting, but > in any case, I will try to come to Palais de Nations asap, aiming > 9 to 9:30 am today, and try to at least chat a while at the cafe > with those who could still come. And then we can discuss more > meetings during the consultation days. > > best, > > izumi > > > 2012/2/13 Robert Guerra > >> Attached and below is a summary of the IGC IGF Feb 2012 Open Consultation >> survey results. >> >> Data current as of 9:53am Geneva Time , Feb 13th. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> Count of Will you be attending the upcoming IGF Open Consultation & >> Open MAG meeting in Geneva Row Labels Total No 1 Online 1 possibly >> attending-time availability 2 Yes 1 Yes, attending in person 3 Yes, >> attending virtually 3 Grand Total 11 Count of When will you arrive >> in Geneva Row Labels Total online 1 12-02-12 3 12-02-13 2 12-02-14 >> 1 (blank) Grand Total 7 Count of Are you currently a member of >> the MAG ? Row Labels Total No 8 Yes - Term has not yet expired 2 >> (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What stakeholder group will you >> be registered as at the consultation. Row Labels Total Civil Society >> (NGO+Academia) 8 special adviser to the Chair 1 Technical Community 1 >> (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What region will you be registered >> as ? Row Labels Total Africa 1 Asia-Pacific 2 Latin American and >> Caribbean 3 Western European and Others 4 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count >> of Entity and/or Organization you will be registered as Row Labels Total >> (Self/Diplo) 1 APC 1 Brazilian Internet Steering Committee 1 Citizen >> Lab, University of Toronto 1 Collectif National pour le Développement >> Humanitaire 1 IGC Candidate to the MAG 1 Institute for >> InfoSocionomics, Tama Univ. 1 ISOC Finland 1 Pacific Young >> Professionals Training Development Forum 1 self 1 (blank) Grand Total >> 10 Count of What are best times for you to participate in pre >> meeting briefing ? Row Labels Total Monday Feb 13 - Afternoon (12-1800) >> 2 Monday Feb 13 - Evening (1800-2100) 1 Sunday Feb 12 1 Tuesday Feb >> 14 - Breakfast (0700-0900), Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start of >> consultation 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start of >> consultation 1 (blank) Grand Total 6 >> >> >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 >> >> > > > -- > >> 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 > > -- “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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 04:32:14 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:32:14 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGC IGF 2012 Consultation Survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi and Robert, Can you please inform the appropriate persons to fix the link? Is anyone else having problems with the link or is it a bandwidth issue? Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Help! The remote participation just doesn't seem to be working :-( > Please someone make the point of how crucially important it is that the > link should WORK if there is a true intention to include as many > stakeholders as possible. > deirdre > > > On 13 February 2012 23:40, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Thanks Robert, and sorry for not following up earlier. >> >> It's a pity that we could not organize a pre-meeting, but >> in any case, I will try to come to Palais de Nations asap, aiming >> 9 to 9:30 am today, and try to at least chat a while at the cafe >> with those who could still come. And then we can discuss more >> meetings during the consultation days. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> >> >> 2012/2/13 Robert Guerra >> >>> Attached and below is a summary of the IGC IGF Feb 2012 Open >>> Consultation survey results. >>> >>> Data current as of 9:53am Geneva Time , Feb 13th. >>> >>> regards >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> Count of Will you be attending the upcoming IGF Open Consultation & >>> Open MAG meeting in Geneva Row Labels Total No 1 Online 1 possibly >>> attending-time availability 2 Yes 1 Yes, attending in person 3 Yes, >>> attending virtually 3 Grand Total 11 Count of When will you >>> arrive in Geneva Row Labels Total online 1 12-02-12 3 12-02-13 2 >>> 12-02-14 1 (blank) Grand Total 7 Count of Are you currently a >>> member of the MAG ? Row Labels Total No 8 Yes - Term has not yet >>> expired 2 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What stakeholder >>> group will you be registered as at the consultation. Row Labels Total Civil >>> Society (NGO+Academia) 8 special adviser to the Chair 1 Technical >>> Community 1 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What region will you >>> be registered as ? Row Labels Total Africa 1 Asia-Pacific 2 Latin >>> American and Caribbean 3 Western European and Others 4 (blank) Grand >>> Total 10 Count of Entity and/or Organization you will be registered >>> as Row Labels Total (Self/Diplo) 1 APC 1 Brazilian Internet >>> Steering Committee 1 Citizen Lab, University of Toronto 1 Collectif >>> National pour le Développement Humanitaire 1 IGC Candidate to the MAG 1 Institute >>> for InfoSocionomics, Tama Univ. 1 ISOC Finland 1 Pacific Young >>> Professionals Training Development Forum 1 self 1 (blank) Grand >>> Total 10 Count of What are best times for you to participate in pre >>> meeting briefing ? Row Labels Total Monday Feb 13 - Afternoon >>> (12-1800) 2 Monday Feb 13 - Evening (1800-2100) 1 Sunday Feb 12 1 Tuesday >>> Feb 14 - Breakfast (0700-0900), Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start >>> of consultation 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start of >>> consultation 1 (blank) Grand Total 6 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> R. Guerra >>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > “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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 14 04:36:17 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:36:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC IGF 2012 Consultation Survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5664724238866823854@unknownmsgid> there are internet network issues at the venue. We have local connectivity, but remote access does not seem to work. techs have been dispatched Robert Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos or brevity. On 2012-02-14, at 10:32 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: Dear Izumi and Robert, Can you please inform the appropriate persons to fix the link? Is anyone else having problems with the link or is it a bandwidth issue? Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Help! The remote participation just doesn't seem to be working :-( > Please someone make the point of how crucially important it is that the > link should WORK if there is a true intention to include as many > stakeholders as possible. > deirdre > > > On 13 February 2012 23:40, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Thanks Robert, and sorry for not following up earlier. >> >> It's a pity that we could not organize a pre-meeting, but >> in any case, I will try to come to Palais de Nations asap, aiming >> 9 to 9:30 am today, and try to at least chat a while at the cafe >> with those who could still come. And then we can discuss more >> meetings during the consultation days. >> >> best, >> >> izumi >> >> >> 2012/2/13 Robert Guerra >> >>> Attached and below is a summary of the IGC IGF Feb 2012 Open >>> Consultation survey results. >>> >>> Data current as of 9:53am Geneva Time , Feb 13th. >>> >>> regards >>> >>> Robert >>> >>> Count of Will you be attending the upcoming IGF Open Consultation & >>> Open MAG meeting in Geneva Row Labels Total No 1 Online 1 possibly >>> attending-time availability 2 Yes 1 Yes, attending in person 3 Yes, >>> attending virtually 3 Grand Total 11 Count of When will you >>> arrive in Geneva Row Labels Total online 1 12-02-12 3 12-02-13 2 >>> 12-02-14 1 (blank) Grand Total 7 Count of Are you currently a >>> member of the MAG ? Row Labels Total No 8 Yes - Term has not yet >>> expired 2 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What stakeholder >>> group will you be registered as at the consultation. Row Labels Total Civil >>> Society (NGO+Academia) 8 special adviser to the Chair 1 Technical >>> Community 1 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What region will you >>> be registered as ? Row Labels Total Africa 1 Asia-Pacific 2 Latin >>> American and Caribbean 3 Western European and Others 4 (blank) Grand >>> Total 10 Count of Entity and/or Organization you will be registered >>> as Row Labels Total (Self/Diplo) 1 APC 1 Brazilian Internet >>> Steering Committee 1 Citizen Lab, University of Toronto 1 Collectif >>> National pour le Développement Humanitaire 1 IGC Candidate to the MAG 1 Institute >>> for InfoSocionomics, Tama Univ. 1 ISOC Finland 1 Pacific Young >>> Professionals Training Development Forum 1 self 1 (blank) Grand >>> Total 10 Count of What are best times for you to participate in pre >>> meeting briefing ? Row Labels Total Monday Feb 13 - Afternoon >>> (12-1800) 2 Monday Feb 13 - Evening (1800-2100) 1 Sunday Feb 12 1 Tuesday >>> Feb 14 - Breakfast (0700-0900), Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start >>> of consultation 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start of >>> consultation 1 (blank) Grand Total 6 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> R. Guerra >>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > “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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: 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 fatimacambronero at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 04:39:01 2012 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:39:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGC IGF 2012 Consultation Survey In-Reply-To: <5664724238866823854@unknownmsgid> References: <5664724238866823854@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Dear Sala, I have the same problem. Remote participation is not working for me. Fatima 2012/2/14 Robert Guerra > there are internet network issues at the venue. We have local > connectivity, but remote access does not seem to work. techs have been > dispatched > > Robert > > > Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos or brevity. > > > On 2012-02-14, at 10:32 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Izumi and Robert, > > Can you please inform the appropriate persons to fix the link? Is anyone > else having problems with the link or is it a bandwidth issue? > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Help! The remote participation just doesn't seem to be working :-( >> Please someone make the point of how crucially important it is that the >> link should WORK if there is a true intention to include as many >> stakeholders as possible. >> deirdre >> >> >> On 13 February 2012 23:40, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> Thanks Robert, and sorry for not following up earlier. >>> >>> It's a pity that we could not organize a pre-meeting, but >>> in any case, I will try to come to Palais de Nations asap, aiming >>> 9 to 9:30 am today, and try to at least chat a while at the cafe >>> with those who could still come. And then we can discuss more >>> meetings during the consultation days. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> >>> 2012/2/13 Robert Guerra >>> >>>> Attached and below is a summary of the IGC IGF Feb 2012 Open >>>> Consultation survey results. >>>> >>>> Data current as of 9:53am Geneva Time , Feb 13th. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> >>>> Robert >>>> >>>> Count of Will you be attending the upcoming IGF Open Consultation & >>>> Open MAG meeting in Geneva Row Labels Total No 1 Online 1 possibly >>>> attending-time availability 2 Yes 1 Yes, attending in person 3 Yes, >>>> attending virtually 3 Grand Total 11 Count of When will you >>>> arrive in Geneva Row Labels Total online 1 12-02-12 3 12-02-13 2 >>>> 12-02-14 1 (blank) Grand Total 7 Count of Are you currently a >>>> member of the MAG ? Row Labels Total No 8 Yes - Term has not yet >>>> expired 2 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What stakeholder >>>> group will you be registered as at the consultation. Row Labels Total Civil >>>> Society (NGO+Academia) 8 special adviser to the Chair 1 Technical >>>> Community 1 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What region will >>>> you be registered as ? Row Labels Total Africa 1 Asia-Pacific 2 Latin >>>> American and Caribbean 3 Western European and Others 4 (blank) Grand >>>> Total 10 Count of Entity and/or Organization you will be >>>> registered as Row Labels Total (Self/Diplo) 1 APC 1 Brazilian >>>> Internet Steering Committee 1 Citizen Lab, University of Toronto 1 Collectif >>>> National pour le Développement Humanitaire 1 IGC Candidate to the MAG >>>> 1 Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama Univ. 1 ISOC Finland 1 Pacific >>>> Young Professionals Training Development Forum 1 self 1 (blank) Grand >>>> Total 10 Count of What are best times for you to participate in >>>> pre meeting briefing ? Row Labels Total Monday Feb 13 - Afternoon >>>> (12-1800) 2 Monday Feb 13 - Evening (1800-2100) 1 Sunday Feb 12 1 Tuesday >>>> Feb 14 - Breakfast (0700-0900), Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start >>>> of consultation 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start of >>>> consultation 1 (blank) Grand Total 6 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> R. Guerra >>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “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 >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Directora de Investigaciones *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ *@facambronero* *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 14 04:41:33 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:41:33 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGC IGF 2012 Consultation Survey In-Reply-To: References: <5664724238866823854@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Robert, Please great the Group Skype in the meantime and people can send private messages to you to be added on. You can add me to the Group Skype and you can call it IGCGeneva 2012 or something. So we can continue group skype chats seamlessly and keep giving constant feedback please, thanks. Sala On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Fatima Cambronero < fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sala, > > I have the same problem. Remote participation is not working for me. > > Fatima > > > 2012/2/14 Robert Guerra > >> there are internet network issues at the venue. We have local >> connectivity, but remote access does not seem to work. techs have been >> dispatched >> >> Robert >> >> >> Sent from a mobile device. Apologies for typos or brevity. >> >> >> On 2012-02-14, at 10:32 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Izumi and Robert, >> >> Can you please inform the appropriate persons to fix the link? Is anyone >> else having problems with the link or is it a bandwidth issue? >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Deirdre Williams < >> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Help! The remote participation just doesn't seem to be working :-( >>> Please someone make the point of how crucially important it is that the >>> link should WORK if there is a true intention to include as many >>> stakeholders as possible. >>> deirdre >>> >>> >>> On 13 February 2012 23:40, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Robert, and sorry for not following up earlier. >>>> >>>> It's a pity that we could not organize a pre-meeting, but >>>> in any case, I will try to come to Palais de Nations asap, aiming >>>> 9 to 9:30 am today, and try to at least chat a while at the cafe >>>> with those who could still come. And then we can discuss more >>>> meetings during the consultation days. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> izumi >>>> >>>> >>>> 2012/2/13 Robert Guerra >>>> >>>>> Attached and below is a summary of the IGC IGF Feb 2012 Open >>>>> Consultation survey results. >>>>> >>>>> Data current as of 9:53am Geneva Time , Feb 13th. >>>>> >>>>> regards >>>>> >>>>> Robert >>>>> >>>>> Count of Will you be attending the upcoming IGF Open Consultation >>>>> & Open MAG meeting in Geneva Row Labels Total No 1 Online 1 possibly >>>>> attending-time availability 2 Yes 1 Yes, attending in person 3 Yes, >>>>> attending virtually 3 Grand Total 11 Count of When will you >>>>> arrive in Geneva Row Labels Total online 1 12-02-12 3 12-02-13 2 >>>>> 12-02-14 1 (blank) Grand Total 7 Count of Are you currently a >>>>> member of the MAG ? Row Labels Total No 8 Yes - Term has not yet >>>>> expired 2 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What stakeholder >>>>> group will you be registered as at the consultation. Row Labels Total Civil >>>>> Society (NGO+Academia) 8 special adviser to the Chair 1 Technical >>>>> Community 1 (blank) Grand Total 10 Count of What region will >>>>> you be registered as ? Row Labels Total Africa 1 Asia-Pacific 2 Latin >>>>> American and Caribbean 3 Western European and Others 4 (blank) Grand >>>>> Total 10 Count of Entity and/or Organization you will be >>>>> registered as Row Labels Total (Self/Diplo) 1 APC 1 Brazilian >>>>> Internet Steering Committee 1 Citizen Lab, University of Toronto 1 Collectif >>>>> National pour le Développement Humanitaire 1 IGC Candidate to the MAG >>>>> 1 Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama Univ. 1 ISOC Finland 1 Pacific >>>>> Young Professionals Training Development Forum 1 self 1 (blank) Grand >>>>> Total 10 Count of What are best times for you to participate in >>>>> pre meeting briefing ? Row Labels Total Monday Feb 13 - Afternoon >>>>> (12-1800) 2 Monday Feb 13 - Evening (1800-2100) 1 Sunday Feb 12 1 Tuesday >>>>> Feb 14 - Breakfast (0700-0900), Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start >>>>> of consultation 1 Tuesday Feb 14 - Immediately prior to start of >>>>> consultation 1 (blank) Grand Total 6 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> R. Guerra >>>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > Directora de Investigaciones > *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* > http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ > > *@facambronero* > > *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 14 05:09:58 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:09:58 +1300 Subject: [governance] Group Skype Link [Geneva Remote Participation and On-site Participants] Message-ID: Dear All, We have set up a Group Skype for IGC participants to supplement the live stream feeds. This will enable you to interact with those from the IGC who are on-site. If you would like to join the Group Skype, add me if you are not already in my contact list and I will add you to the Group. My Skype name is salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 14 06:26:40 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:26:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. *Announcement of* *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process* A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs related to Internet governance issues. · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible resources of knowledge and expertise. · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Announcement of AIGF - Version 2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 267835 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 Tue Feb 14 06:33:33 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:33:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great initiative, long overdue. Congrats for pushing this, Qusai BD On Feb 14, 2012, at 12:26, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. > > Announcement of > The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process > > A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. > The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. > During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. > The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. > The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: > · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. > · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. > · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs related to Internet governance issues. > · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. > · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible resources of knowledge and expertise. > · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. > · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 06:33:43 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:33:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congrats to you Qusai and all the Arab countries and leaders involved in this initiative. I hope we might also be able to participate in such an important activity. Best Fouad On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the > Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait > Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first > week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. > > > Announcement of > > The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process > > A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the > Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – > 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the > League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social > Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the > Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait > Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF > secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from > governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the > Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing > the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. > > The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to > seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The > ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group > meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on > the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to > stakeholders in the Arab World. > > During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the > importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region > and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending > the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by > the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication > and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who > welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation > of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. > > The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the > AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to > the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder > Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information > Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October > 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National > Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was > an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was > agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to > give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their > interest to participate in it. > > The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: > > ·         Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance > especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. > > ·         Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge > and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. > > ·         Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab > views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs > related to Internet governance issues. > > ·         Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. > > ·         Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as > improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible > resources of knowledge and expertise. > > ·         Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role > in formulating Internet Governance policies. > > ·         Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional > IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 06:41:02 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:41:02 +1300 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including this in our Calendar. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the > Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait > Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first > week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. > > > *Announcement of* > > *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process* > > A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the > Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – > 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the > League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social > Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the > Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait > Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF > secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from > governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in > the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in > discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab > World. > > The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) > to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The > ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group > meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on > the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to > stakeholders in the Arab World. > > During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and > the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the > region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report > recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and > forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) > on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the > active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the > Arab IGF process. > > The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of > the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar > to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder > Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information > Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October > 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National > Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. There > was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was > agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to > give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express > their interest to participate in it. > > The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: > > · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet > Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and > development. > > · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, > knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and > Academics. > > · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab > views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs > related to Internet governance issues. > > · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. > > · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as > improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible > resources of knowledge and expertise. > > · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab > role in formulating Internet Governance policies. > > · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional > IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 14 06:53:21 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:23:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F3A4B31.302@itforchange.net> Congrats Qusai, That is a big step for the region. And special congrats to you and your organisation for pushing this....parminder On Tuesday 14 February 2012 04:56 PM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of > the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by > Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait > on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. > > *Announcement of* > > *_The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process_* > > A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of > the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period > of 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was > organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation > Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council > of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was > sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and > was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants > representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil > society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open > consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an > Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. > > The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers > (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an > Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an > expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 > which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance > with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. > > During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need > and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events > in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A > report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the > participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive > Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology > Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, > endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all > stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. > > The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals > of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure > similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a > Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). _A proposal was made by > Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in > Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic > of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the > AIGF secretariat_. There was an agreement and consent on both > proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public > announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the > opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their > interest to participate in it. > > The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: > > · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance > especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. > > · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge > and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and > Academics. > > · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views > on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs > related to Internet governance issues. > > · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. > > · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve > the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible > resources of knowledge and expertise. > > · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in > formulating Internet Governance policies. > > · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs > with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From admin at alkasir.com Tue Feb 14 06:53:56 2012 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF ) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:53:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I add my congratulations and gratitude to Qusai and the group for making this happen and welcome future collaboration and support! Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including this > in our Calendar. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues: >> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the >> Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait >> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first >> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. >> >> >> *Announcement of* >> >> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process* >> >> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the >> Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – >> 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the >> League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social >> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the >> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait >> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF >> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from >> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in >> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in >> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab >> World. >> >> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab >> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The >> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group >> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on >> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to >> stakeholders in the Arab World. >> >> During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and >> the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the >> region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report >> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and >> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab >> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the >> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the >> Arab IGF process. >> >> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of >> the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar >> to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder >> Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information >> Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October >> 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National >> Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. >> There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. >> It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be >> made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to >> express their interest to participate in it. >> >> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: >> >> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet >> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and >> development. >> >> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, >> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and >> Academics. >> >> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab >> views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs >> related to Internet governance issues. >> >> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. >> >> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as >> improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible >> resources of knowledge and expertise. >> >> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab >> role in formulating Internet Governance policies. >> >> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional >> IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mazzone at ebu.ch Tue Feb 14 06:58:03 2012 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:58:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF824A6853C@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Congratulation Qusai for this achievement. We shall try to help you in any manner.. Giacomo From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Qusai AlShatti Sent: mardi, 14. février 2012 12:27 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Dear Colleagues: I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. Announcement of The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 - 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to the IGF's current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: * Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. * Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. * Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs related to Internet governance issues. * Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. * Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible resources of knowledge and expertise. * Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. * Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Feb 14 07:04:59 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:04:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F3A4DEB.2020508@cafonso.ca> Grande Qusai! Congratulations! fraternal regards --c.a. On 02/14/2012 09:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the > Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait > Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first > week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. > > > *Announcement of* > > *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process* > > A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the > Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – > 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the > League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social > Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the > Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait > Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF > secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from > governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in > the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in > discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab > World. > > The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) > to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The > ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group > meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on > the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to > stakeholders in the Arab World. > > During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the > importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the > region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report > recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and > forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) > on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the > active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the > Arab IGF process. > > The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the > AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to > the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder > Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information > Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October > 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National > Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. There > was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was > agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to > give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express > their interest to participate in it. > > The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: > > · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet > Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and > development. > > · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge > and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. > > · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab > views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs > related to Internet governance issues. > > · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. > > · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as > improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible > resources of knowledge and expertise. > > · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role > in formulating Internet Governance policies. > > · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional > IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 07:14:55 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:14:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations! :-) On 14 February 2012 07:26, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the > Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait > Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first > week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. > > > *Announcement of* > > *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process* > > A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the > Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – > 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the > League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social > Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the > Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait > Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF > secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from > governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in > the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in > discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab > World. > > The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) > to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The > ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group > meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on > the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to > stakeholders in the Arab World. > > During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and > the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the > region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report > recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and > forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) > on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the > active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the > Arab IGF process. > > The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of > the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar > to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder > Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information > Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October > 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National > Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. There > was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was > agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to > give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express > their interest to participate in it. > > The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: > > · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet > Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and > development. > > · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, > knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and > Academics. > > · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab > views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs > related to Internet governance issues. > > · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. > > · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as > improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible > resources of knowledge and expertise. > > · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab > role in formulating Internet Governance policies. > > · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional > IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 07:40:59 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:40:59 -0200 Subject: [governance] Feb IGF Open Consultation - Update #1 In-Reply-To: <523754DF-8A2E-4973-8652-5ADBFC0FF258@privaterra.org> References: <523754DF-8A2E-4973-8652-5ADBFC0FF258@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Hi Robert, We have several meetings scheduled for May and it would be great if organizers could coordinate among themselves to set up a coherent schedule (back to back, etc) that would allow for more participation. Besides WSIS, on 18th May there will be a one day meeting about enhanced cooperation. In May there will also be the CSTD regular conference (date not yet in the website). If you could make that point later during the OC, that would be good. Marília On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Good morning from Geneva! > > Start of IGF Open consultation is today. Here's some headlines before I > head out to the UN for the meeting: > > - IGF website has been updated. > - Open consultation synthesis paper summarizing contributions is finally > online bit.ly/AyrOR3 > - Stakeholder requests for additional time (likely govts) - extends MAG > nomination deadline until 24 February 2012 > - The Seventh Annual IGF Meeting will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan. Dates > being mentioned are in November. > > Nov might prove to be a problem as Bakutel (18th Annual Azerbaijan > International Telecommunications conference, 7-10Nov) is also taking place. > Will Bakutel & IGF take place in the same venue at the same time? Question > likely to be answered today. > > - Next MAG meeting will take place in May, in Geneva. Exact dates unknown > as still subject to scheduling. Likely will take place close to or during > WSIS forum (action item follow-up) 14-18 May. > http://groups.itu.int/Default.aspx?alias=groups.itu.int/wsis-forum2012 > > - Hashtag being used for aggregating IGF posts this week - #igf2012 > - Chat space for interactive dialogue and communication - > https://crypto.cat/?c=igf2012 > > CS briefing taking place at 9am. > > More details later this morning. > > regards > > Robert > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 08:52:44 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:52:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1329227564.53958.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Great Congratulation Qusai for the establishment of Arab IGF. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah www.IGFPAK.org >________________________________ >From: Qusai AlShatti >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Tuesday, 14 February 2012, 16:26 >Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF > > >Dear Colleagues: >I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. > >Announcement of >The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process >A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. >The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. >During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. >The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. >The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: >·         Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. >·         Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. >·         Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs related to Internet governance issues. >·         Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. >·         Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible resources of knowledge and expertise. >·         Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. >·         Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 14 09:48:00 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 23:48:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow! Qusai you did it! izumi 2012/2/14 Qusai AlShatti : > Dear Colleagues: > I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the > Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait > Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first > week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. > > > Announcement of > > The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process > > A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the > Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – > 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the > League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social > Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the > Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait > Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF > secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from > governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the > Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing > the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. > > The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to > seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The > ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group > meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on > the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to > stakeholders in the Arab World. > > During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the > importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region > and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending > the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by > the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication > and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who > welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation > of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. > > The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the > AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to > the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder > Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information > Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October > 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National > Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was > an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was > agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to > give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their > interest to participate in it. > > The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: > > ·         Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance > especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. > > ·         Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge > and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. > > ·         Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab > views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs > related to Internet governance issues. > > ·         Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. > > ·         Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as > improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible > resources of knowledge and expertise. > > ·         Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role > in formulating Internet Governance policies. > > ·         Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional > IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 isolatednet at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 10:15:26 2012 From: isolatednet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:45:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Group Skype Link [Geneva Remote Participation and On-site Participants] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, Please add me to the group as "isocindiachennai" Thank you On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > We have set up a Group Skype for IGC participants to supplement the live > stream feeds. This will enable you to interact with those from the IGC who > are on-site. If you would like to join the Group Skype, add me if you are > not already in my contact list and I will add you to the Group. > > My Skype name is salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 a.beccalli at unesco.org Tue Feb 14 10:18:08 2012 From: a.beccalli at unesco.org (Beccalli, Andrea) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:18:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Group Skype Link [Geneva Remote Participation and On-site Participants] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sala, thank you for adding me too: upintheterrace Best, Andrea Beccalli _____________________________________ UNESCO Associate Expert Knowledge Societies Division Communication and Information Sector Tel: +33 (0)1 45 68 42 50 Email: a.beccalli at unesco.org www.unesco.org/webworld _____________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: isolatedn at gmail.com [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian M Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:15 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: Re: [governance] Group Skype Link [Geneva Remote Participation and On-site Participants] Dear Sala, Please add me to the group as "isocindiachennai" Thank you On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > We have set up a Group Skype for IGC participants to supplement the > live stream feeds. This will enable you to interact with those from > the IGC who are on-site. If you would like to join the Group Skype, > add me if you are not already in my contact list and I will add you to the Group. > > My Skype name is salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 10:28:57 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:28:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Group Skype Link [Geneva Remote Participation and On-site Participants] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: carlosveraq is my skype 2012/2/14 Sivasubramanian M > Dear Sala, > > Please add me to the group as "isocindiachennai" > > Thank you > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > We have set up a Group Skype for IGC participants to supplement the live > > stream feeds. This will enable you to interact with those from the IGC > who > > are on-site. If you would like to join the Group Skype, add me if you are > > not already in my contact list and I will add you to the Group. > > > > My Skype name is salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From khaled.koubaa at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 10:57:30 2012 From: khaled.koubaa at gmail.com (khaled koubaa) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:57:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Qusai, Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting in Lebanon. I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment. Thank you, Khaled Koubaa Sent by an Android phone Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit : > We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including this > in our Calendar. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues: >> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the >> Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait >> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first >> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. >> >> >> *Announcement of* >> >> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process* >> >> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the >> Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – >> 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the >> League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social >> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the >> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait >> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF >> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from >> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in >> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in >> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab >> World. >> >> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab >> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The >> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group >> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on >> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to >> stakeholders in the Arab World. >> >> During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and >> the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the >> region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report >> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and >> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab >> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the >> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the >> Arab IGF process. >> >> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of >> the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar >> to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder >> Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information >> Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October >> 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National >> Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. >> There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. >> It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be >> made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to >> express their interest to participate in it. >> >> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: >> >> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet >> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and >> development. >> >> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, >> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and >> Academics. >> >> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab >> views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs >> related to Internet governance issues. >> >> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. >> >> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as >> improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible >> resources of knowledge and expertise. >> >> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab >> role in formulating Internet Governance policies. >> >> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional >> IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 14 11:27:40 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:27:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Khaled: We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format. We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote: > Hi Qusai, > Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting in > Lebanon. > I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations of > the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment. > Thank you, > > Khaled Koubaa > > Sent by an Android phone > Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit : > > We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including this >> in our Calendar. >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: >> >>> Dear Colleagues: >>> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the >>> Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait >>> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first >>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. >>> >>> >>> *Announcement of* >>> >>> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process* >>> >>> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of >>> the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of >>> 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by >>> the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social >>> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the >>> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait >>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF >>> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from >>> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in >>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in >>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab >>> World. >>> >>> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab >>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The >>> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group >>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on >>> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to >>> stakeholders in the Arab World. >>> >>> During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and >>> the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the >>> region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report >>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and >>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab >>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the >>> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the >>> Arab IGF process. >>> >>> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of >>> the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar >>> to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder >>> Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information >>> Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October >>> 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National >>> Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. >>> There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. >>> It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be >>> made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to >>> express their interest to participate in it. >>> >>> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: >>> >>> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet >>> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and >>> development. >>> >>> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, >>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and >>> Academics. >>> >>> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified >>> Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries >>> needs related to Internet governance issues. >>> >>> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. >>> >>> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as >>> improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible >>> resources of knowledge and expertise. >>> >>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab >>> role in formulating Internet Governance policies. >>> >>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other >>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From philippe.blanchard at me.com Tue Feb 14 12:24:35 2012 From: philippe.blanchard at me.com (Philippe Blanchard) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:24:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Group [Geneva Remote Participation and On-site Participants] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <97CB5B33-9436-4BEA-ADE6-E172E237338C@me.com> Dear All As agreed a snapshot of our discussions today... easier per email than through skype (do not ask me why, attachment was blocked...) Kind regards Philippe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: bcedf36a3990701c0700fb8e48d804c7.png Type: image/png Size: 98710 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 f.massit at orange.fr Tue Feb 14 12:39:27 2012 From: f.massit at orange.fr (massit follea) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:39:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] For your information Message-ID: <78AD14CD-36C6-4688-B1DD-78848EC3E0D4@orange.fr> Dear list-adm., Can you post the following Subscription Form on the igcaucus list? That's the last outcome of the (now closed) Vox Internet research programme. Best, FMF www.csi.ensmp.fr/voxinternet françoise massit-follea f.massit at orange.fr 06 74 51 67 65 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: book Mines Sousc.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 259123 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 13:29:09 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:29:09 +1300 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am just wondering whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the planning. If not, I am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > Dear Khaled: > We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were > conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were > all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an > equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the > open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all > stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we > requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a > multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public > announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open > consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they > requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format. > > We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process. > > Regards, > > Qusai AlShatti > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote: > >> Hi Qusai, >> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting >> in Lebanon. >> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations of >> the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment. >> Thank you, >> >> Khaled Koubaa >> >> Sent by an Android phone >> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including >>> this in our Calendar. >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Colleagues: >>>> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of >>>> the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait >>>> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first >>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Announcement of* >>>> >>>> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process* >>>> >>>> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of >>>> the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of >>>> 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by >>>> the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social >>>> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the >>>> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait >>>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF >>>> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from >>>> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in >>>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in >>>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab >>>> World. >>>> >>>> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab >>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The >>>> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group >>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on >>>> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to >>>> stakeholders in the Arab World. >>>> >>>> During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and >>>> the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the >>>> region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report >>>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and >>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab >>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the >>>> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the >>>> Arab IGF process. >>>> >>>> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of >>>> the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar >>>> to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder >>>> Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information >>>> Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October >>>> 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National >>>> Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. >>>> There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. >>>> It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be >>>> made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to >>>> express their interest to participate in it. >>>> >>>> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: >>>> >>>> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet >>>> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and >>>> development. >>>> >>>> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, >>>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and >>>> Academics. >>>> >>>> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified >>>> Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries >>>> needs related to Internet governance issues. >>>> >>>> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. >>>> >>>> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as >>>> improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible >>>> resources of knowledge and expertise. >>>> >>>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab >>>> role in formulating Internet Governance policies. >>>> >>>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other >>>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Tue Feb 14 14:29:03 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:29:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004201cceb4e$e9090280$bb1b0780$@planet.tn> Hi Qusai, Thank you for the update. I do wish great success to the Arab IGF. You said that all participants from all stakeholder groups were involved in the open consultation. I think that this was true to a certain extend. A very large portion of the Arab civil society wasn’t involved, neither informed. Perhaps the origin of this deficiency came from the fact that Beirut was organized by ESCWA which scope is limited to its geographic region (West Asia). The African part of the Arab region is thus excluded from its interest. I do wish that in the future, this situation will not happen again, and that all Arab civil society activists will be invited to participate. ------------------------------------------------------ TIjani BEN JEMAA Vice Chair of the CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------ De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Qusai AlShatti Envoyé : mardi 14 février 2012 17:28 À : khaled koubaa Cc : Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Objet : Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Dear Khaled: We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format. We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote: Hi Qusai, Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting in Lebanon. I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment. Thank you, Khaled Koubaa Sent by an Android phone Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" a écrit : We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including this in our Calendar. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: Dear Colleagues: I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. Announcement of The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs related to Internet governance issues. · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible resources of knowledge and expertise. · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _____ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011 La Base de données des virus a expiré. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 14 14:33:54 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:33:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Salenieta: Yes they were there. Qusai On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > I am just wondering whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the > planning. If not, I am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know. > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: > >> Dear Khaled: >> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were >> conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were >> all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an >> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the >> open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all >> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we >> requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a >> multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public >> announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open >> consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they >> requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format. >> >> We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process. >> >> Regards, >> >> Qusai AlShatti >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote: >> >>> Hi Qusai, >>> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting >>> in Lebanon. >>> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations >>> of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment. >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Khaled Koubaa >>> >>> Sent by an Android phone >>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>> We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including >>>> this in our Calendar. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Colleagues: >>>>> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of >>>>> the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait >>>>> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first >>>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Announcement of* >>>>> >>>>> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process* >>>>> >>>>> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of >>>>> the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of >>>>> 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by >>>>> the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social >>>>> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the >>>>> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait >>>>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF >>>>> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from >>>>> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in >>>>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in >>>>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab >>>>> World. >>>>> >>>>> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab >>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The >>>>> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group >>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on >>>>> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to >>>>> stakeholders in the Arab World. >>>>> >>>>> During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need >>>>> and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in >>>>> the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report >>>>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and >>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab >>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the >>>>> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the >>>>> Arab IGF process. >>>>> >>>>> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals >>>>> of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure >>>>> similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a >>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by >>>>> Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait >>>>> in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt >>>>> National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat >>>>> *. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the >>>>> participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG >>>>> membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the >>>>> Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. >>>>> >>>>> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: >>>>> >>>>> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet >>>>> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and >>>>> development. >>>>> >>>>> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, >>>>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and >>>>> Academics. >>>>> >>>>> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified >>>>> Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries >>>>> needs related to Internet governance issues. >>>>> >>>>> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. >>>>> >>>>> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well >>>>> as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all >>>>> possible resources of knowledge and expertise. >>>>> >>>>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the >>>>> Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. >>>>> >>>>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other >>>>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 14:41:29 2012 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:41:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: <004201cceb4e$e9090280$bb1b0780$@planet.tn> References: <004201cceb4e$e9090280$bb1b0780$@planet.tn> Message-ID: <1518065790-1329248487-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-953060750-@b25.c4.bise7.blackberry> Tijani, I was in Beirut meeting as CS participant and could say that the micro group present there was enough to launch it :) The most important now is that the AIGF will soon be a reality :) Let's make sure to involve CS as much possible, and we can do so for the first meeting. All the best, Bernard Sent via my BlackBerry® smartphone -----Original Message----- From: Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:29:03 To: ; 'Qusai AlShatti'; 'khaled koubaa' Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Cc: 'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro' Subject: RE: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Hi Qusai, Thank you for the update. I do wish great success to the Arab IGF. You said that all participants from all stakeholder groups were involved in the open consultation. I think that this was true to a certain extend. A very large portion of the Arab civil society wasn’t involved, neither informed. Perhaps the origin of this deficiency came from the fact that Beirut was organized by ESCWA which scope is limited to its geographic region (West Asia). The African part of the Arab region is thus excluded from its interest. I do wish that in the future, this situation will not happen again, and that all Arab civil society activists will be invited to participate. ------------------------------------------------------ TIjani BEN JEMAA Vice Chair of the CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------ De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Qusai AlShatti Envoyé : mardi 14 février 2012 17:28 À : khaled koubaa Cc : Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Objet : Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Dear Khaled: We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format. We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote: Hi Qusai, Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting in Lebanon. I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment. Thank you, Khaled Koubaa Sent by an Android phone Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" a écrit : We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including this in our Calendar. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: Dear Colleagues: I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. Announcement of The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs related to Internet governance issues. · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible resources of knowledge and expertise. · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _____ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011 La Base de données des virus a expiré. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 14 14:43:48 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:43:48 +1300 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: <004201cceb4e$e9090280$bb1b0780$@planet.tn> References: <004201cceb4e$e9090280$bb1b0780$@planet.tn> Message-ID: Hi Qusai and others, Continue to be encouraged and know that you guys are doing an excellent job. The main thing is that others will come later and join. Someone has to pioneer. Perhaps, Tijani and others can make a list of all other stakeholders and send them to Qusai to add them to the mailing list of Arab e forum that is currently available. Let's do this together! Best Regards, Sala On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM, wrote: > Hi Qusai,**** > > ** ** > > Thank you for the update. I do wish great success to the Arab IGF.**** > > ** ** > > You said that all participants from all stakeholder groups were involved > in the open consultation. I think that this was true to a certain extend. A > very large portion of the Arab civil society wasn’t involved, neither > informed. Perhaps the origin of this deficiency came from the fact that > Beirut was organized by ESCWA which scope is limited to its geographic > region (West Asia). The African part of the Arab region is thus excluded > from its interest.**** > > ** ** > > I do wish that in the future, this situation will not happen again, and > that all Arab civil society activists will be invited to participate.**** > > ** ** > > ------------------------------------------------------**** > > TI*jani BEN JEMAA* > > Vice Chair of the CIC**** > > World Federation of *E*ngineering *O*rganizations**** > > Phone : + 216 70 825 231**** > > Mobile : + 216 98 330 114**** > > Fax : + 216 70 825 231**** > > ------------------------------------------------------**** > > ** ** > > *De :* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *De la part de* Qusai AlShatti > *Envoyé :* mardi 14 février 2012 17:28 > *À :* khaled koubaa > *Cc :* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Objet :* Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF**** > > ** ** > > Dear Khaled:**** > > We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were > conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were > all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an > equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the > open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all > stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we > requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a > multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public > announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open > consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they > requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format. **** > > **** > > We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process.*** > * > > **** > > Regards,**** > > > Qusai AlShatti**** > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa > wrote:**** > > Hi Qusai, > Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting in > Lebanon. > I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations of > the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment. > Thank you,**** > > Khaled Koubaa**** > > Sent by an Android phone**** > > Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :**** > > ** ** > > We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including this > in our Calendar.**** > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti > wrote:**** > > Dear Colleagues:**** > > I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the > Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait > Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first > week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. **** > > **** > > *Announcement of***** > > *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process***** > > A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the > Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – > 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the > League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social > Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the > Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait > Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF > secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from > governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in > the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in > discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab > World. **** > > The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) > to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The > ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group > meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on > the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to > stakeholders in the Arab World. **** > > During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and > the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the > region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report > recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and > forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) > on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the > active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the > Arab IGF process.**** > > The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of > the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar > to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder > Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information > Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October > 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National > Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. There > was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was > agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to > give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express > their interest to participate in it. **** > > The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should:**** > > · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet > Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and > development.**** > > · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, > knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and > Academics.**** > > · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab > views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs > related to Internet governance issues.**** > > · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it.**** > > · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as > improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible > resources of knowledge and expertise.**** > > · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab > role in formulating Internet Governance policies.**** > > · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional > IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise.**** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala**** > > ** ** > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT**** > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro**** > > Cell: +679 998 2851**** > > **** > > ** ** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011 > La Base de données des virus a expiré.**** > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 14 14:49:08 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:49:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: <004201cceb4e$e9090280$bb1b0780$@planet.tn> Message-ID: GOOD SUGGESTION. On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Qusai and others, > > Continue to be encouraged and know that you guys are doing an excellent > job. The main thing is that others will come later and join. Someone has to > pioneer. Perhaps, Tijani and others can make a list of all other > stakeholders and send them to Qusai to add them to the mailing list of Arab > e forum that is currently available. > > Let's do this together! > > Best Regards, > Sala > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM, wrote: > >> Hi Qusai,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thank you for the update. I do wish great success to the Arab IGF.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> You said that all participants from all stakeholder groups were involved >> in the open consultation. I think that this was true to a certain extend. A >> very large portion of the Arab civil society wasn’t involved, neither >> informed. Perhaps the origin of this deficiency came from the fact that >> Beirut was organized by ESCWA which scope is limited to its geographic >> region (West Asia). The African part of the Arab region is thus excluded >> from its interest.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I do wish that in the future, this situation will not happen again, and >> that all Arab civil society activists will be invited to participate.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ------------------------------------------------------**** >> >> TI*jani BEN JEMAA* >> >> Vice Chair of the CIC**** >> >> World Federation of *E*ngineering *O*rganizations**** >> >> Phone : + 216 70 825 231**** >> >> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114**** >> >> Fax : + 216 70 825 231**** >> >> ------------------------------------------------------**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *De :* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *De la part de* Qusai AlShatti >> *Envoyé :* mardi 14 février 2012 17:28 >> *À :* khaled koubaa >> *Cc :* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Objet :* Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Dear Khaled:**** >> >> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were >> conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were >> all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an >> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the >> open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all >> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we >> requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a >> multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public >> announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open >> consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they >> requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format. **** >> >> **** >> >> We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process.** >> ** >> >> **** >> >> Regards,**** >> >> >> Qusai AlShatti**** >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa >> wrote:**** >> >> Hi Qusai, >> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting >> in Lebanon. >> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations of >> the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment. >> Thank you,**** >> >> Khaled Koubaa**** >> >> Sent by an Android phone**** >> >> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :**** >> >> ** ** >> >> We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including >> this in our Calendar.**** >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti >> wrote:**** >> >> Dear Colleagues:**** >> >> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the >> Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait >> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first >> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. **** >> >> **** >> >> *Announcement of***** >> >> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process**** >> * >> >> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the >> Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – >> 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the >> League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social >> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the >> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait >> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF >> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from >> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in >> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in >> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab >> World. **** >> >> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab >> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The >> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group >> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on >> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to >> stakeholders in the Arab World. **** >> >> During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and >> the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the >> region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report >> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and >> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab >> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the >> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the >> Arab IGF process.**** >> >> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of >> the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar >> to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder >> Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information >> Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October >> 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National >> Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. >> There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. >> It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be >> made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to >> express their interest to participate in it. **** >> >> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should:**** >> >> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet >> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and >> development.**** >> >> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, >> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and >> Academics.**** >> >> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab >> views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs >> related to Internet governance issues.**** >> >> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it.**** >> >> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as >> improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible >> resources of knowledge and expertise.**** >> >> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab >> role in formulating Internet Governance policies.**** >> >> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional >> IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise.**** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- **** >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT**** >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro**** >> >> Cell: +679 998 2851**** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> ** ** >> ------------------------------ >> >> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011 >> La Base de données des virus a expiré.**** >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 14:52:31 2012 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:52:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: <004201cceb4e$e9090280$bb1b0780$@planet.tn> Message-ID: <1795148698-1329249149-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-682765348-@b25.c4.bise7.blackberry> Qusai we should suggest to our egyptian friends a online form to get stakeholders involved :) We can share it here as well :) Sent via my BlackBerry® smartphone -----Original Message----- From: Qusai AlShatti Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:49:08 To: ; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Qusai AlShatti Subject: Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF GOOD SUGGESTION. On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Qusai and others, > > Continue to be encouraged and know that you guys are doing an excellent > job. The main thing is that others will come later and join. Someone has to > pioneer. Perhaps, Tijani and others can make a list of all other > stakeholders and send them to Qusai to add them to the mailing list of Arab > e forum that is currently available. > > Let's do this together! > > Best Regards, > Sala > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM, wrote: > >> Hi Qusai,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Thank you for the update. I do wish great success to the Arab IGF.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> You said that all participants from all stakeholder groups were involved >> in the open consultation. I think that this was true to a certain extend. A >> very large portion of the Arab civil society wasn’t involved, neither >> informed. Perhaps the origin of this deficiency came from the fact that >> Beirut was organized by ESCWA which scope is limited to its geographic >> region (West Asia). The African part of the Arab region is thus excluded >> from its interest.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I do wish that in the future, this situation will not happen again, and >> that all Arab civil society activists will be invited to participate.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ------------------------------------------------------**** >> >> TI*jani BEN JEMAA* >> >> Vice Chair of the CIC**** >> >> World Federation of *E*ngineering *O*rganizations**** >> >> Phone : + 216 70 825 231**** >> >> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114**** >> >> Fax : + 216 70 825 231**** >> >> ------------------------------------------------------**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *De :* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *De la part de* Qusai AlShatti >> *Envoyé :* mardi 14 février 2012 17:28 >> *À :* khaled koubaa >> *Cc :* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Objet :* Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Dear Khaled:**** >> >> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were >> conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were >> all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an >> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the >> open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all >> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we >> requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a >> multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public >> announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open >> consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they >> requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format. **** >> >> **** >> >> We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process.** >> ** >> >> **** >> >> Regards,**** >> >> >> Qusai AlShatti**** >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa >> wrote:**** >> >> Hi Qusai, >> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting >> in Lebanon. >> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations of >> the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment. >> Thank you,**** >> >> Khaled Koubaa**** >> >> Sent by an Android phone**** >> >> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :**** >> >> ** ** >> >> We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including >> this in our Calendar.**** >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti >> wrote:**** >> >> Dear Colleagues:**** >> >> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the >> Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait >> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first >> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. **** >> >> **** >> >> *Announcement of***** >> >> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process**** >> * >> >> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the >> Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – >> 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the >> League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social >> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the >> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait >> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF >> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from >> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in >> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in >> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab >> World. **** >> >> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab >> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The >> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group >> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on >> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to >> stakeholders in the Arab World. **** >> >> During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and >> the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the >> region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report >> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and >> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab >> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) >> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the >> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the >> Arab IGF process.**** >> >> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of >> the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar >> to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder >> Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by Kuwait Information >> Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October >> 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National >> Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat*. >> There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. >> It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be >> made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to >> express their interest to participate in it. **** >> >> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should:**** >> >> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet >> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and >> development.**** >> >> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, >> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and >> Academics.**** >> >> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab >> views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs >> related to Internet governance issues.**** >> >> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it.**** >> >> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as >> improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible >> resources of knowledge and expertise.**** >> >> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab >> role in formulating Internet Governance policies.**** >> >> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional >> IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise.**** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- **** >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT**** >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro**** >> >> Cell: +679 998 2851**** >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** >> >> ** ** >> ------------------------------ >> >> Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. >> Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr >> Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011 >> La Base de données des virus a expiré.**** >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 14:55:46 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:55:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Message-ID: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Quasi, Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF activities? I hope that if there is some remote participation facility, some of our Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia. We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in AIGF formation activities. Thanks and Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT Qusai AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:>>> I am just wondering whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the>> planning. If not, I am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>> Dear Khaled:>> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were>> conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were>> all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an>> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the>> open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all>> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we>> requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public>> announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open>> consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they>> requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format.>>>> We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process.>>>> Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote:>>>>> Hi Qusai,>>> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations>>> of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> Khaled Koubaa>>>>>> Sent by an Android phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :>>>>>> We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including>>> this in our Calendar.>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:>>>> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of>>>> the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first>>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>>>> the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>>>> 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by>>>> the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social>>>> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>>> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF>>>> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from>>>> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in>>>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in>>>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The>>>> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in the Arab World.>>>>>>>> During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need>>>> and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in>>>> the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report>>>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the>>>> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the>>>> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals>>>> of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure>>>> similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>>>> Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>>>> *. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the>>>> participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG>>>> membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the>>>> Arab world to express their interest to participate in it.>>>>>>>> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet>>>> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and>>>> development.>>>>>>>> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified>>>> Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>>>> needs related to Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it.>>>>>>>> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well>>>> as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> possible resources of knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the>>>> Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies.>>>>>>>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other>>>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 14 15:01:01 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:01:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Message-ID: <1329249661.38391.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Qusai Sorry for typo error ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:55 AM PKT Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>>Dear Quasi,>Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF activities?>I hope that if there is some remote participation facility, some of our Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia.>We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in AIGF formation activities.>Thanks and Regards>Imran Ahmed Shah>------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT Qusai AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were there.>Qusai>On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:>> I am just wondering whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the> planning. If not, I am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know.>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>> Dear Khaled:> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were> conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were> all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the> open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we> requested the ESCWA and> LAS before the meeting to ensure a> multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public> announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open> consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they> requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format.>> We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process.>> Regards,>> Qusai AlShatti> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote:>>> Hi Qusai,>> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting>> in Lebanon.>> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations>> of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment.>> Thank you,>>> Khaled Koubaa>>> Sent by an Android phone>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :>>> We warmly congratulate this> development and look forward to including>> this in our Calendar.>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>> Dear Colleagues:>> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of>> the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement.>>>>>> *Announcement of*>>>> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>> the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>> 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by>> the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social>> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF>> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from>> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab>> World.>>>> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The>> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on>> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to>> stakeholders in the Arab World.>>>> During> the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need>> and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in>> the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the>> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the>> Arab IGF process.>>>> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals>> of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure>> similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a>> Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>> Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the> First Arab IGF in Kuwait>> in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt>> National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>> *. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the>> participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG>> membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the>> Arab world to express their interest to participate in it.>>>> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should:>>>> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet>> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and>> development.>>>> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices,>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and>> Academics.>>>> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified>> Arab views on priorities> and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>> needs related to Internet governance issues.>>>> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it.>>>> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well>> as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all>> possible resources of knowledge and expertise.>>>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the>> Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies.>>>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise.>>>> ____________________________________________________________>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>> -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>> --> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hananeb at diplomacy.edu Tue Feb 14 15:18:50 2012 From: hananeb at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:18:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Kahlid&Tijani, There was a lady from Tunisia Ms. Roukia who represented Arab ICT ORG. The whole AIGF process was delayed for one year due to the Arab spring and ESCWA had to organize the last consultation meeting to establish the forum very quickly and it might explain the reason why other CS ORGs from the Arab region did not manage to participate. I was very much involved since 2009 in this process. I participated in the consultaions that took place in 2010 and 2012 and I also constributed with other CS members from the Arab region to define the Arab IG roadmap published by UNESCWA and based on which the forum will be organized. I suppose that the emerging issues since the roadmap was drafted will be also taken into consideration to define the agenda of the first edition. Please do follow @IGFArab on Twitter and ArabIGF on Facebook for more updates about the whole process. It will be great if we get as many Arab CS members involved. It will be also great to do some outreach at the local level to define the IG process since the concept is still ambiguous to the masses in the region. I am afraid a lot of work needs to be done in this regard. Hanane Boujemi On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Dear Quasi, > Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF activities? > I hope that if there is some remote participation facility, some of our > Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia. > We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in AIGF formation > activities. > Thanks and Regards > Imran Ahmed Shah > ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT Qusai > AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb > 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <> > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:>>> I am just wondering > whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the>> planning. If not, I > am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb > 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>> Dear > Khaled:>> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open > consultation were>> conducted in an open transparent inclusive > multistakeholder process were>> all participants from all multistakeholder > groups actively engaged in an>> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and > in drafting the outcomes of the>> open consultations. I don't have the list > of final participants but all>> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were > represented. Actually we>> requested the ESCWA and > LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> multistakeholders representation in > the open consultations. A public>> announcement was made for this purpose. > Furthemore when the open>> consultation was requested by the Arab ministers > of communication, they>> requested that it should be conducted in a > multistakeholder format.>>>> We look forward for your participation in the > Arab IGF and its process.>>>> Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, Feb 14, > 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote:>>>>> Hi > Qusai,>>> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that > meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of > some gov-organizations>>> of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders > involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> Khaled Koubaa>>>>>> Sent by an Android > phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :>>>>>> We warmly > congratulate this > development and look forward to including>>> this in our Calendar.>>>>>> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>>>>> > Dear Colleagues:>>>> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the > establshment of>>>> the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be > organized by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society which will be held > in Kuwait on the first>>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF > announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the > Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A Multistakeholder > open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>>>> the Arab Internet > Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>>>> 31/1 – 1/2/2012 > in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by>>>> the League > of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social>>>> Commission > of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>>> > Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait>>>> > Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF>>>> > secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from>>>> > governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations > in>>>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively > in>>>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the > Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open consultation was carried based on the > request of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology > Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders > on the need for an Arab IGF. The>>>> ministers requested it after receiving > the outcome of an expert group>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA > in October 2010 which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on > Internet Governance with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in the Arab > World.>>>>>>>> During > the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need>>>> and the > importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in>>>> the > region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report>>>> > recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants > and>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the > Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers > (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and > recommended the>>>> active participation of all stakeholders, including > governments, in the>>>> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> The participants in the > open consultations focused also on the goals>>>> of the AIGF and its > structure. There was consent to adopt a structure>>>> similar to the IGF’s > current structure with a secretariat and a>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory > Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>>>> Kuwait Information Technology > Society to host the > First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early October 2012 and a proposal was > made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National Telecommunication Regulatory > Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>>>> *. There was an agreement and > consent on both proposals by the>>>> participants. It was agreed that a > public announcement for the MAG>>>> membership will be made to give the > opportunity for all stakeholders in the>>>> Arab world to express their > interest to participate in it.>>>>>>>> The open consultation recommended > that the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> · Focus on discussing public policies > related to Internet>>>> Governance especially in the areas of access, > stability, security and>>>> development.>>>>>>>> · Facilitate the > exchange of information, best practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned > by involving experts, technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> · > Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified>>>> Arab > views on priorities > and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>>>> needs related to > Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> · Discuss emerging issues and > present recommendations on it.>>>>>>>> · Build and develop capacity > in Internet Governance as well>>>> as improve the participation of all > stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> possible resources of knowledge and > expertise.>>>>>>>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and > enhance the>>>> Arab role in formulating Internet Governance > policies.>>>>>>>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and > other>>>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and > expertise.>>>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________>>>> You > received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> For all other list > information and functions, see:>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit your profile > and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -->>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________>>> You > received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> For all other list > information and functions, see:>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>> To edit your profile and to > find the IGC's charter, see:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 15:19:54 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:19:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Open consultation Message-ID: I should have sent this to the list yesterday. Sorry it's so long. Deirdre Comments from me and on submissions made by others: There appears to be a need to change perspective. There has been a shift so that now development is not only an issue between countries – north and south – but can also be a stratification issue within countries – a rich developed top layer and a poor underdeveloped lower layer both in the north and in the south. This needs to be recognised. Remote participation (RP) needs an improved status. This is both a technology issue and a recognition issue. The technology must make it possible, and the recognition should as far as possible give it equal status. There also need to be excellent remote participation moderators to act as interface at meetings. And the issue of linguistic inclusion also needs to be addressed with the possibility of several moderators covering several different languages. I know this is a lot to ask for but equality is not just an Anglophone quality. Perhaps initially willing face to face participants could be ‘conscripted’ to provide inclusion in their various languages. ISOC Remote participation The growth in the number of remote hubs and the increase of remote participants that went with remote hubs is a basis to build on to overcome the challenge and cost of travel to attend meetings. – agree 100% National Regional IGFs There is a need to enhance the exchange of reports between these two interfaces to continue and grow going forward. – definitely – perhaps a mechanism to do this could be set up – or encouraged and improved? Funding This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of value to its participants. – I have grave concerns where value is always equated with money. we view the Internet as an enabler for a wide range of human rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and opinion and access to information and knowledge as well as the right to association - agree filtering be part of the main agenda of the 2012 IGF. DNS filtering is increasingly used by governments to combat allegedly illegal online activities, and this technical measure raises strong concerns, not only with regard to the underlying Internet architecture, but also with regard to due legal process and human rights, while not solving the problems at their source. – this is certainly an issue, but I also find John Carr’s arguments re blocking in the context of child pornography very convincing. How to reconcile the unreconcilable? APC In Nairobi, a concrete proposal to create a global internet governance body was put on the table by governments from developing countries (the IBSA proposal) , which resulted in exactly the kind of intense and diverse debate that the IGF was created for. APC applauds this kind of active agenda-setting of developing countries as a positive step to counteract exclusion and the predominance of developed country agendas as the typical starting points for discussion. However as we see it the question about the best way to discuss development in relation to internet governance remains unanswered – this is what triggered my first comment (see above) (Change the perspective – not so much countries, more social strata) The need for clearly-defined rules within which to operate, and an appropriate level of transparency was also highlighted - yes if data discrimination for mobile internet is a technical necessity, then policy-makers must define and clearly outline the principles for governing such practices. – yes, and there should be general harmonisation of policy as much as possible. However, high prices remain a problem. Electricity is still widely unavailable and mobile phones are often prohibitively expensive for the poorest in society, and prices for mobile subscriptions are artificially high due to licensing fees and competition issues. There is an urgent need for these critical barriers to universal mobile internet to be addressed through communications policy and strategy – yes. At least in Saint Lucia there is a government tax of 15% on mobile services – a very healthy revenue generator. the issue of conflict minerals needs to be on the agenda for the next IGF. Policy-makers must establish clear guidelines and legislation that address issues of traceability, accountability and responsibility in the mineral procurement chain. – this also needs greater public awareness. Can this be taken together with the issue of ICT waste and recycling? internet intermediary liability, the impact of restrictions on freedom of expression and association, and responding to violence against women online. - yes freedom of association online needs to be assigned the same level of importance as freedom of expression has in IGF debates. Indeed the two are inextricably linked and interdependent. - YES Balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge -YES Disparities in access between rich and poor, urban and rural areas serve to exacerbate existing social inequalities. – see my first point above human rights be the main theme of IGF in 2012 – good idea internet access as a human right, freedom of expression and freedom of association. Human rights topics which became visible for the first time at the IGF included: • a human rights approach to mobile • remedies for internet rights violations • human rights and corporate responsibility • the rights of disabled people and young people. (who speaks for whom? Profile of mag; consider the person or consider the ideas; do outward and visible signs automatically contain the inferred inward and spiritual grace? In other words how to balance the individual profile of the representative with the broader profile of the constituency represented) Human rights is the framework with which we judge the merits of ICT policy. To us internet governance has to assume a rights-based framework. Business and technical decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they must be informed and measured by respect for the rights and wellbeing of the people who will be using technology We need more cross-pollination between business, law enforcement, civil society and the technical communities. Rather than talking about each other, we should be speaking to each other – YES AND YES AND YES NRO Remote Participation was improved in 2011 compared to 2010, but there is still much to be done to improve this important tool for strengthening accessibility. – see above • Continue to encourage Regional Hubs and support greater direct participation between them and the IGF sessions in order to allow a bidirectional flow of discussions – see above Build a link between Regional IG discussions and the MAG for feedback and information Sharing – see above -- “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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 15:34:33 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:34:33 +0600 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion Message-ID: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of funding may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of something (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is this the principle that we want to accept? We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote participation as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are allowed "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second class" position -- since we know how much of outcome determination/decision making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the practice we want to accept? Mike -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 14 15:46:33 2012 From: joy at apc.org (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:46:33 +1300 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <016301cceb59$c005bd00$40113700$@apc.org> This is a great initiative - congratulations! Joy From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Qusai AlShatti Sent: Wednesday, 15 February 2012 12:27 a.m. To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Dear Colleagues: I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. Announcement of The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 - 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to the IGF's current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: . Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. . Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. . Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs related to Internet governance issues. . Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. . Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible resources of knowledge and expertise. . Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. . Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Tue Feb 14 16:15:48 2012 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:15:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: <1518065790-1329248487-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-953060750-@b25.c4.bise7.blackberry> References: <004201cceb4e$e9090280$bb1b0780$@planet.tn> <1518065790-1329248487-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-953060750-@b25.c4.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <006e01cceb5d$d2e15390$78a3fab0$@planet.tn> Sure Bernard. I don’t say that the Beirut event needs to gather all the stakeholder entities’ members, but I think that the information should reach each and every one regardless of their geographic region in the Arab world. Once again, I’m not angry for missing the consultations and I hope the future will be better, and that the Arab IGF be the most successful. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Président de la CIC Fédération Mondiale des Organisations d’Ingénieurs Téléphone : + 216 70 825 231 Tél Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Télécopie : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Bernard Sadaka Envoyé : mardi 14 février 2012 20:41 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn; 'Qusai AlShatti'; 'khaled koubaa' Cc : 'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro' Objet : Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Tijani, I was in Beirut meeting as CS participant and could say that the micro group present there was enough to launch it :) The most important now is that the AIGF will soon be a reality :) Let's make sure to involve CS as much possible, and we can do so for the first meeting. All the best, Bernard Sent via my BlackBerry® smartphone _____ From: Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:29:03 +0100 To: ; 'Qusai AlShatti'; 'khaled koubaa' ReplyTo: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Cc: 'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro' Subject: RE: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Hi Qusai, Thank you for the update. I do wish great success to the Arab IGF. You said that all participants from all stakeholder groups were involved in the open consultation. I think that this was true to a certain extend. A very large portion of the Arab civil society wasn’t involved, neither informed. Perhaps the origin of this deficiency came from the fact that Beirut was organized by ESCWA which scope is limited to its geographic region (West Asia). The African part of the Arab region is thus excluded from its interest. I do wish that in the future, this situation will not happen again, and that all Arab civil society activists will be invited to participate. ------------------------------------------------------ TIjani BEN JEMAA Vice Chair of the CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------ De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Qusai AlShatti Envoyé : mardi 14 février 2012 17:28 À : khaled koubaa Cc : Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Objet : Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Dear Khaled: We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format. We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote: Hi Qusai, Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting in Lebanon. I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment. Thank you, Khaled Koubaa Sent by an Android phone Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" a écrit : We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including this in our Calendar. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote: Dear Colleagues: I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. Announcement of The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs related to Internet governance issues. · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible resources of knowledge and expertise. · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _____ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011 La Base de données des virus a expiré. _____ Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011 La Base de données des virus a expiré. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 15 03:32:27 2012 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:32:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1329294747.85431.YahooMailNeo@web171403.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> This is a great news Qusai, Congratulations   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président www.rtcb.bi Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général www.bytc.bi Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Qusai AlShatti À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Envoyé le : Mardi 14 février 2012 13h26 Objet : [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Dear Colleagues: I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement.   Announcement of The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: ·         Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. ·         Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. ·         Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs related to Internet governance issues. ·         Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. ·         Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible resources of knowledge and expertise. ·         Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. ·         Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From naveedpta at hotmail.com Wed Feb 15 05:15:59 2012 From: naveedpta at hotmail.com (Naveed haq) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:15:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Qusai, Heartiest Congratulations on the initiative. Wish you all the very best. Best Regards, Naveed-ul-Haq Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:26:40 +0100 From: qshatti at gmail.com To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Dear Colleagues:I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement. Announcement of The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab World. The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to stakeholders in the Arab World. During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM) on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the Arab IGF process. The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure similar to the IGF’s current structure with a secretariat and a Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). A proposal was made by Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the Arab world to express their interest to participate in it. The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should: · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and development. · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices, knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and Academics. · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries needs related to Internet governance issues. · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it. · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all possible resources of knowledge and expertise. · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies. · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From khaled.koubaa at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 06:54:54 2012 From: khaled.koubaa at gmail.com (Khaled KOUBAA) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:54:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F3B9D0E.7020308@gmail.com> Hanane, The AICTO is a Governmental-Organization and does not represent the civil society. You know more than me that they are really very few of real civil society "free" and "independent" CSO in the Arab World. The private sector is as well governed in a big part by governments. So what we will have is a Arab IGF where what the governments will propose will be congratulated and accepted by the participants. Let's be honest with ourselves, are we just continuing to do the same "cinema" than before ? I think that a region like the Arab region where there is now huge geopolitical regional change, revolutions in some countries, power changing in some others, and all this with a big role being played by Internet. Do you think an Arab IGF can be made like this ? We need a real participatory process. Where is the revolution leaders ? where is the Internet and Human rights activists ? are they involved ? will the be invited ? I don't think so. The same old pro-dictators continue to play the same game in our countries. Khaled Le 14/02/2012 21:18, Hanane Boujemi a écrit : > > Kahlid&Tijani, > > There was a lady from Tunisia Ms. Roukia who represented Arab ICT ORG. > The whole AIGF process was delayed for one year due to the Arab spring > and ESCWA had to organize the last consultation meeting to establish > the forum very quickly and it might explain the reason why other CS > ORGs from the Arab region did not manage to participate. > > I was very much involved since 2009 in this process. I participated in > the consultaions that took place in 2010 and 2012 and I also > constributed with other CS members from the Arab region to define the > Arab IG roadmap published by UNESCWA and based on which the forum will > be organized. I suppose that the emerging issues since the roadmap was > drafted will be also taken into consideration to define the agenda of > the first edition. > > Please do follow @IGFArab on Twitter and ArabIGF on Facebook for more > updates about the whole process. It will be great if we get as many > Arab CS members involved. It will be also great to do some outreach at > the local level to define the IG process since the concept is still > ambiguous to the masses in the region. I am afraid a lot of work needs > to be done in this regard. > > Hanane Boujemi > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: > > > Dear Quasi, > Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF activities? > I hope that if there is some remote participation facility, some > of our Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and > Saudi Arabia. > We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in AIGF > formation activities. > Thanks and Regards > Imran Ahmed Shah > ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT > Qusai AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were > there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro <>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > > wrote:>>> I am just > wondering whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the>> > planning. If not, I am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let > me know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti > > wrote:>>>> Dear > Khaled:>> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open > consultation were>> conducted in an open transparent inclusive > multistakeholder process were>> all participants from all > multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an>> equal manner in > discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the>> open > consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but > all>> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. > Actually we>> requested the ESCWA and > LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> multistakeholders > representation in the open consultations. A public>> announcement > was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open>> consultation > was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they>> > requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder > format.>>>> We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF > and its process.>>>> Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, Feb 14, > 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa >wrote:>>>>> Hi Qusai,>>> Could > you please share with us the list of participants at that > meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I have real concern with contnuous > oversight of some gov-organizations>>> of the Arab IGF without > real multistakeholders involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> Khaled > Koubaa>>>>>> Sent by an Android phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, > "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > > a écrit :>>>>>> We > warmly congratulate this > development and look forward to including>>> this in our > Calendar.>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti > >wrote:>>>>>>> Dear > Colleagues:>>>> I would like to take the opportunity to announce > the establshment of>>>> the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of > AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology > Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first>>>> week of > October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> > *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet > Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A Multistakeholder open > consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>>>> the Arab > Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>>>> > 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was > organized by>>>> the League of Arab States (LAS), the United > Nation Economic and Social>>>> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) > and the Council of Ministers of the>>>> > Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by > Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was > attended by the IGF>>>> secretariat. More than 50 participants > representing stakeholders from>>>> governments, private sector, > civil society and regional organizations in>>>> the Arab World > attended the open consultation and engaged actively in>>>> > discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the > Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open consultation was carried based on > the request of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information > Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from > various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The>>>> > ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert > group>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 > which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on Internet > Governance with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in the Arab > World.>>>>>>>> During > the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need>>>> > and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of > events in>>>> the region and the major role of the Internet in > these events. A report>>>> recommending the establishment of AIGF > was drafted by the participants and>>>> forwarded by the LAS > Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab>>>> > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers > (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and > recommended the>>>> active participation of all stakeholders, > including governments, in the>>>> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> The > participants in the open consultations focused also on the > goals>>>> of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to > adopt a structure>>>> similar to the IGF’s current structure with > a secretariat and a>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). > *A proposal was made by>>>> Kuwait Information Technology Society > to host the > First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early October 2012 and a proposal > was made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National Telecommunication > Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>>>> *. There was > an agreement and consent on both proposals by the>>>> > participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the > MAG>>>> membership will be made to give the opportunity for all > stakeholders in the>>>> Arab world to express their interest to > participate in it.>>>>>>>> The open consultation recommended that > the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> · Focus on discussing public > policies related to Internet>>>> Governance especially in the > areas of access, stability, security and>>>> development.>>>>>>>> > · Facilitate the exchange of information, best > practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, > technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> · Gather > different opinions and build consensus for unified>>>> Arab views > on priorities > and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>>>> needs related > to Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> · Discuss emerging > issues and present recommendations on it.>>>>>>>> · Build > and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well>>>> as improve > the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> > possible resources of knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> · > Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the>>>> Arab > role in formulating Internet Governance policies.>>>>>>>> · > Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other>>>> > regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and > expertise.>>>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the > list, visit:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit your > profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the > list, visit:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>> To edit your profile > and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>>>>>>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 07:19:03 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:19:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Mike, You make important points. I think that we have two main sources of funding for participation in the IGF process, one that comes from organizations (ISOC, Diplo, APC, etc, etc), and other that has a more "public" character on the sense that it is an amount of money given to foster participation, which is, I believe, is delivered through ITU/IGF Secretariat. When the resources come from the organizations, I think that they are entitled to develop their own methods of selection. I would encourage, though, the this selection follows some bottom-up agreed guidelines, such as strive for regional, gender and age diversity, foster the participation of new comers and be transparent. When it comes to funding that has been given to foster participation, I think that the rules of procedure need to be clear and more strict, for instance: public call for applications, regional, gender, age balance, focus on underrepresented groups, results made public in due time, etc. Which means, interested participants deserve a transparent selection process and they should not need to succeed in the market place, as you put it. It would be great to hear what others think about it, taking into account the upcoming WG meeting to draft the report on IGF improvements. I also agree with your second point. I think that remote participation is an integral part of the IGF and it's complementary to it. But it is not a substitute to physical attendance. Remote hubs have a very important role in community building and capacity building and their inputs can be shared through remote participation channels. But full two-way interaction needs adjustment of the methodology of the meeting per se, so views can be delivered physically or remotely in an indistinctly manner. We are not on that level yet. The IGF is a physical meeting that is very open for remote interventions. Our wish is to keep improving remote participation, but we cannot forget where we stand. Marilia On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:34 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and > there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of funding > may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give > precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and > what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of something > (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its > success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is this > the principle that we want to accept? > > We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote participation > as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision > making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the > legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple > layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are allowed > "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on > outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second > class" position -- since we know how much of outcome determination/decision > making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f > interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the > practice we want to accept? > > 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 > > -- 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 Wed Feb 15 07:47:43 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:47:43 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Recommendation Doc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Izumi. This document is already on the format of a report, so it is more objective and easier to read, although is a tentative document. As you will see, the report is divided into 6 sections: A. Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings B. Working modalities including open consultations, MAG, and Secretariat C. Funding of the IGF D. Broadening participation E. Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies F. Monitoring the implementation of recommendations on improvements to the IGF Of course, all the points are very important, but I would like to specifically call your attention to point D, *broadening participation*, as I believe that goes into the heart of civil society concerns. It is a topic that impacts stakeholders from developed and developing countries, even more so after the economic crisis. Broadening participation means deepening legitimacy of the IGF and increasing the pool of ideas shared in the meeting, to the benefit of us all. Particularly for developing countries, this topic is crucial. Looking at regional participation at the IGF on previous years (disregarding host country participants) we see astonishing low levels of physical attendance from Pacific, Africa and particularly from South America and the Caribbean. How can we address this? *Are the suggestions made on this draft report enough? Are they in tune with the real obstacles we all find to take part in the IGF process*? It would be great to hear your views. Marília On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > In addition to the documents already online for CSTD IGF WG, there also is > an additional document sent to the WG members a few days ago which > is not yet online. > > Though close in substance, it is much easier to read and understand, and > closer > to the final report, in my view. > > So, under my own responsibility, I am sharing this document with IGC > list members. Please understand that this is a work-in-progress > document and my intention is to have better inputs from the list so > that we can work more productively next week. > > All the words here is sort of in square bracket, tentative, until > everything > is agreed. > > izumi > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- 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 hananeb at diplomacy.edu Wed Feb 15 08:32:28 2012 From: hananeb at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:32:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: <4F3B9D0E.7020308@gmail.com> References: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F3B9D0E.7020308@gmail.com> Message-ID: Kahled I get your point and I can confirm that civil society fingerprints are quite significant in setting the scene of the AIGF even though there were only few members present. Now that the process took off effectively with Kuwait taking the lead in organizing the first AIGF (and thanks to Qusai for his constant support) and ESCWA as well who really worked hard to get this process out of the door. We have to join forces to make it a successful true open forum to all parties concerned. There will be open consultations to decide on the themes and workshops and that's where civil society from the region must be ready to raise the main issues at stake vis-a-vis IG. There is no chance for the AIGF to be another episode in the oppression soap opera , power is now changing as you said and it's in the hand of the common man thanks to the Internet. Hanane On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: > Hanane, > The AICTO is a Governmental-Organization and does not represent the civil > society. > You know more than me that they are really very few of real civil society > "free" and "independent" CSO in the Arab World. > The private sector is as well governed in a big part by governments. So > what we will have is a Arab IGF where what the governments will propose > will be congratulated and accepted by the participants. > Let's be honest with ourselves, are we just continuing to do the same > "cinema" than before ? > I think that a region like the Arab region where there is now huge > geopolitical regional change, revolutions in some countries, power changing > in some others, and all this with a big role being played by Internet. > Do you think an Arab IGF can be made like this ? We need a real > participatory process. > Where is the revolution leaders ? where is the Internet and Human rights > activists ? are they involved ? will the be invited ? I don't think so. > The same old pro-dictators continue to play the same game in our countries. > > Khaled > > Le 14/02/2012 21:18, Hanane Boujemi a écrit : > > Kahlid&Tijani, > > There was a lady from Tunisia Ms. Roukia who represented Arab ICT ORG. The > whole AIGF process was delayed for one year due to the Arab spring and > ESCWA had to organize the last consultation meeting to establish the forum > very quickly and it might explain the reason why other CS ORGs from the > Arab region did not manage to participate. > > I was very much involved since 2009 in this process. I participated in the > consultaions that took place in 2010 and 2012 and I also constributed with > other CS members from the Arab region to define the Arab IG roadmap > published by UNESCWA and based on which the forum will be organized. I > suppose that the emerging issues since the roadmap was drafted will be also > taken into consideration to define the agenda of the first edition. > > Please do follow @IGFArab on Twitter and ArabIGF on Facebook for more > updates about the whole process. It will be great if we get as many Arab CS > members involved. It will be also great to do some outreach at the local > level to define the IG process since the concept is still ambiguous to the > masses in the region. I am afraid a lot of work needs to be done in this > regard. > > Hanane Boujemi > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> >> Dear Quasi, >> Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF activities? >> I hope that if there is some remote participation facility, some of our >> Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia. >> We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in AIGF formation >> activities. >> Thanks and Regards >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT Qusai >> AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb >> 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <> >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:>>> I am just wondering >> whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the>> planning. If not, I >> am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb >> 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>> Dear >> Khaled:>> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open >> consultation were>> conducted in an open transparent inclusive >> multistakeholder process were>> all participants from all multistakeholder >> groups actively engaged in an>> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and >> in drafting the outcomes of the>> open consultations. I don't have the list >> of final participants but all>> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were >> represented. Actually we>> requested the ESCWA and >> LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> multistakeholders representation in >> the open consultations. A public>> announcement was made for this purpose. >> Furthemore when the open>> consultation was requested by the Arab ministers >> of communication, they>> requested that it should be conducted in a >> multistakeholder format.>>>> We look forward for your participation in the >> Arab IGF and its process.>>>> Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, Feb 14, >> 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote:>>>>> Hi >> Qusai,>>> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that >> meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of >> some gov-organizations>>> of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders >> involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> Khaled Koubaa>>>>>> Sent by an Android >> phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :>>>>>> We warmly >> congratulate this >> development and look forward to including>>> this in our >> Calendar.>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti < >> qshatti at gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:>>>> I would like to >> take the opportunity to announce the establshment of>>>> the Arab IGF >> (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>>>> >> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the >> first>>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF >> announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the >> Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A Multistakeholder >> open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>>>> the Arab Internet >> Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>>>> 31/1 – 1/2/2012 >> in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by>>>> the League >> of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social>>>> Commission >> of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>>> >> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait>>>> >> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF>>>> >> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from>>>> >> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations >> in>>>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively >> in>>>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the >> Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open consultation was carried based on the >> request of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology >> Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders >> on the need for an Arab IGF. The>>>> ministers requested it after receiving >> the outcome of an expert group>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA >> in October 2010 which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on >> Internet Governance with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in the Arab >> World.>>>>>>>> During >> the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need>>>> and >> the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in>>>> >> the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report>>>> >> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants >> and>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the >> Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers >> (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and >> recommended the>>>> active participation of all stakeholders, including >> governments, in the>>>> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> The participants in the >> open consultations focused also on the goals>>>> of the AIGF and its >> structure. There was consent to adopt a structure>>>> similar to the IGF’s >> current structure with a secretariat and a>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory >> Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>>>> Kuwait Information Technology >> Society to host the >> First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early October 2012 and a proposal was >> made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National Telecommunication Regulatory >> Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>>>> *. There was an agreement and >> consent on both proposals by the>>>> participants. It was agreed that a >> public announcement for the MAG>>>> membership will be made to give the >> opportunity for all stakeholders in the>>>> Arab world to express their >> interest to participate in it.>>>>>>>> The open consultation recommended >> that the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> · Focus on discussing public policies >> related to Internet>>>> Governance especially in the areas of access, >> stability, security and>>>> development.>>>>>>>> · Facilitate the >> exchange of information, best practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned >> by involving experts, technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> · >> Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified>>>> Arab >> views on priorities >> and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>>>> needs related to >> Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> · Discuss emerging issues and >> present recommendations on it.>>>>>>>> · Build and develop capacity >> in Internet Governance as well>>>> as improve the participation of all >> stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> possible resources of knowledge and >> expertise.>>>>>>>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and >> enhance the>>>> Arab role in formulating Internet Governance >> policies.>>>>>>>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and >> other>>>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and >> expertise.>>>>>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________>>>> You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>>> To be removed from the list, >> visit:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> For all >> other list information and functions, see:>>>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit your profile >> and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> -->>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________>>> You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> For all other list >> information and functions, see:>>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>> To edit your profile and to >> find the IGC's charter, see:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851<%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 >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 15 10:12:11 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:12:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Open consultation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Williams, I acquired your point of view because in fact a good communication in a country like within a community is one of the prime factors in all human relationships. The concerns raised last time this is not just the politicians, scientists, technicians but different social groups represented by the various entities of civil society must also be involved in discussions. With this in mind, respecting building on the principle of multistakeholderism, we thought our exchanges organized locally by relying on academic institutions, private sector, ICT technicians, international agencies, subregional and regional active instiutions in the country with civil society entities that represent the users, ie consumers of ICT. Institutions designated by combining academic, we have 80% chance to set up hub to allow people of the DRC to participate remotely, each as possible, in discussions at local, sub regional, regional and international levels. This process requires very good planning and that's what we have already begun. The language aspect is also in the privileged position because in this world of knowledge said, the language of communication has its very high up. The national IGF is an indispensable support and essential for IGF subregional, regional and international levels. Nothing durable can be designed if the nationals IGF are not considered base in all these approaches. It is for this reason that even the level of funding, the participation of active and useful really is becoming more problematic in developing countries. We must think about it. We do not need the extras. Official delegations present but physically absent in the debates or without any relevant contributions must also be raised even if it is already always use the emblematic issue of "sovereignty ". It should also assess the active participation of official delegations. In short we need to talk and not exclude us. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/14 Deirdre Williams > I should have sent this to the list yesterday. > > Sorry it's so long. > > Deirdre > > > Comments from me and on submissions made by others: > > There appears to be a need to change perspective. There has been a shift > so that now development is not only an issue between countries – north and > south – but can also be a stratification issue within countries – a rich > developed top layer and a poor underdeveloped lower layer both in the north > and in the south. This needs to be recognised. > > > > Remote participation (RP) needs an improved status. This is both a > technology issue and a recognition issue. The technology must make it > possible, and the recognition should as far as possible give it equal > status. There also need to be excellent remote participation moderators to > act as interface at meetings. And the issue of linguistic inclusion also > needs to be addressed with the possibility of several moderators covering > several different languages. I know this is a lot to ask for but equality > is not just an Anglophone quality. Perhaps initially willing face to face > participants could be ‘conscripted’ to provide inclusion in their various > languages. > > > > ISOC > > > > Remote participation > > The growth in the number of remote hubs and the increase of remote > participants that > > went with remote hubs is a basis to build on to overcome the challenge and > cost > > of travel to attend meetings. – agree 100% > > > > National Regional IGFs > > There is a need to enhance the exchange of reports between these two > interfaces to > > continue and grow going forward. – definitely – perhaps a mechanism to do > this could be set up – or encouraged and improved? > > > > Funding > > This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of > value to its participants. – I have grave concerns where value is always > equated with money. > > > > we view the Internet as an enabler for a wide range of human rights, such > as the right to freedom of expression and opinion and access to information > and knowledge as well as the right to association - agree > > > > filtering be part of the main agenda of the 2012 IGF. DNS filtering is > increasingly used by governments to combat allegedly illegal online > activities, and this technical measure raises strong concerns, not only > with regard to the underlying Internet architecture, but also with regard > to due legal process and human rights, while not solving the problems at > their source. – this is certainly an issue, but I also find John Carr’s > arguments re blocking in the context of child pornography very convincing. > How to reconcile the unreconcilable? > > > > APC > > In Nairobi, a concrete proposal to create a global internet governance > body was put on the > > table by governments from developing countries (the IBSA proposal) , which > resulted in > > exactly the kind of intense and diverse debate that the IGF was created > for. APC applauds this kind of active agenda-setting of developing > countries as a positive step to counteract exclusion and the predominance > of developed country agendas as the typical starting points for discussion. > > However as we see it the question about the best way to discuss > development in relation to internet governance remains unanswered – this is > what triggered my first comment (see above) > > (Change the perspective – not so much countries, more social strata) > > > > The need for clearly-defined rules within which to operate, and an > appropriate level of > > transparency was also highlighted - yes > > > > if data discrimination for mobile internet is a technical necessity, then > policy-makers must define and clearly outline the principles for governing > such practices. – yes, and there should be general harmonisation of policy > as much as possible. > > > > However, high prices remain a problem. Electricity is still widely > unavailable and mobile phones are often prohibitively expensive for the > poorest in society, and prices for mobile subscriptions are artificially > high due to licensing fees and competition issues. There is an urgent need > for these critical barriers to universal mobile internet to be addressed > through communications policy and strategy – yes. At least in Saint Lucia > there is a government tax of 15% on mobile services – a very healthy > revenue generator. > > > > the issue of conflict minerals needs to be on the agenda for the next IGF. > Policy-makers must establish clear guidelines and legislation that address > issues of traceability, accountability and responsibility in the mineral > procurement chain. – this also needs greater public awareness. Can this be > taken together with the issue of ICT waste and recycling? > > > > internet intermediary liability, the impact of restrictions on freedom of > expression and association, and responding to violence against women > online. - yes > > > > freedom of association online needs to be assigned the same level of > importance as freedom of expression has in IGF debates. Indeed the two are > inextricably linked and interdependent. - YES > > > > Balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge -YES > > > > Disparities in access between rich and poor, urban and rural areas serve > to exacerbate existing social inequalities. – see my first point above > > > > human rights be the main theme of IGF in 2012 – good idea > > > > internet access as a human right, freedom of expression and freedom of > association. > > Human rights topics which became visible for the first time at the IGF > included: > > • a human rights approach to mobile > > • remedies for internet rights violations > > • human rights and corporate responsibility > > • the rights of disabled people and young people. > > > > (who speaks for whom? Profile of mag; consider the person or consider the > ideas; do outward and visible signs automatically contain the inferred > inward and spiritual grace? In other words how to balance the individual > profile of the representative with the broader profile of the constituency > represented) > > > > Human rights is the framework with which we judge the merits of ICT > policy. To us internet governance has to assume a rights-based framework. > Business and technical decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they must be > informed and measured by respect for the rights and wellbeing of the people > who will be using technology > > We need more cross-pollination between business, law enforcement, civil > society and the > > technical communities. Rather than talking about each other, we should be > speaking to each other – YES AND YES AND YES > > > > NRO > > Remote Participation was improved in 2011 compared to 2010, but there is > still much to be > > done to improve this important tool for strengthening accessibility. – see > above > > • Continue to encourage Regional Hubs and support greater direct > participation between them > > and the IGF sessions in order to allow a bidirectional flow of discussions > – see above > > > > Build a link between Regional IG discussions and the MAG for feedback and > information > > Sharing – see above > > > > > > -- > “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 qshatti at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 10:20:41 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:20:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F3B9D0E.7020308@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Khaled and Hanan Thank you Hanan for your kind comments and thank you khaled for raising your concerns. The fact that someone was not there in the meeting does not mean that the meeting was not set in the right way or did not comply with multistakeholder participation. Actually as I have mentioned in a previous input and echoed by some of my colleagues, the open consulation was inclusive, open and publicly anounced for participation. However what khaled have in mind is what we are planning for the Arab IGF. We do want the Arab youth who drived change in the Arab world and still doing it to be the main dirve of the AIGF. I believe AIGFshould be a dialouge space for them. It should allow us to exchange views with the youth as well as listen to them. We need also to bare in mind that the purpose of the open consultation that took place in Beirut was only to discuss the launch of the AIGF and I think all of us agree that it is important to us. The planning of AIGF and its program are our upcoming activities. It will start with a public announcement for the AIGF MAG membership and we look forward to all stakeholders to express their interest and participate in the AIGF MAG. Let us look forward to make the upcoming AIGF a successful one by making it inclusive, transparent and open to all with emphasis on Arab youth and activists. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Hanane Boujemi wrote: > Kahled > > I get your point and I can confirm that civil society fingerprints are > quite significant in setting the scene of the AIGF even though there were > only few members present. > > Now that the process took off effectively with Kuwait taking the lead in > organizing the first AIGF (and thanks to Qusai for his constant support) > and ESCWA as well who really worked hard to get this process out of the > door. We have to join forces to make it a successful true open forum to > all parties concerned. There will be open consultations to decide on the > themes and workshops and that's where civil society from the region must be > ready to raise the main issues at stake vis-a-vis IG. > > There is no chance for the AIGF to be another episode in > the oppression soap opera , power is now changing as you said and it's in > the hand of the common man thanks to the Internet. > > Hanane > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: > >> Hanane, >> The AICTO is a Governmental-Organization and does not represent the civil >> society. >> You know more than me that they are really very few of real civil society >> "free" and "independent" CSO in the Arab World. >> The private sector is as well governed in a big part by governments. So >> what we will have is a Arab IGF where what the governments will propose >> will be congratulated and accepted by the participants. >> Let's be honest with ourselves, are we just continuing to do the same >> "cinema" than before ? >> I think that a region like the Arab region where there is now huge >> geopolitical regional change, revolutions in some countries, power changing >> in some others, and all this with a big role being played by Internet. >> Do you think an Arab IGF can be made like this ? We need a real >> participatory process. >> Where is the revolution leaders ? where is the Internet and Human rights >> activists ? are they involved ? will the be invited ? I don't think so. >> The same old pro-dictators continue to play the same game in our >> countries. >> >> Khaled >> >> Le 14/02/2012 21:18, Hanane Boujemi a écrit : >> >> Kahlid&Tijani, >> >> There was a lady from Tunisia Ms. Roukia who represented Arab ICT ORG. >> The whole AIGF process was delayed for one year due to the Arab spring and >> ESCWA had to organize the last consultation meeting to establish the forum >> very quickly and it might explain the reason why other CS ORGs from the >> Arab region did not manage to participate. >> >> I was very much involved since 2009 in this process. I participated in >> the consultaions that took place in 2010 and 2012 and I also constributed >> with other CS members from the Arab region to define the Arab IG roadmap >> published by UNESCWA and based on which the forum will be organized. I >> suppose that the emerging issues since the roadmap was drafted will be also >> taken into consideration to define the agenda of the first edition. >> >> Please do follow @IGFArab on Twitter and ArabIGF on Facebook for more >> updates about the whole process. It will be great if we get as many Arab CS >> members involved. It will be also great to do some outreach at the local >> level to define the IG process since the concept is still ambiguous to the >> masses in the region. I am afraid a lot of work needs to be done in this >> regard. >> >> Hanane Boujemi >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear Quasi, >>> Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF activities? >>> I hope that if there is some remote participation facility, some of our >>> Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia. >>> We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in AIGF formation >>> activities. >>> Thanks and Regards >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT Qusai >>> AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb >>> 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <> >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:>>> I am just wondering >>> whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the>> planning. If not, I >>> am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb >>> 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>> Dear >>> Khaled:>> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open >>> consultation were>> conducted in an open transparent inclusive >>> multistakeholder process were>> all participants from all multistakeholder >>> groups actively engaged in an>> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and >>> in drafting the outcomes of the>> open consultations. I don't have the list >>> of final participants but all>> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were >>> represented. Actually we>> requested the ESCWA and >>> LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> multistakeholders representation >>> in the open consultations. A public>> announcement was made for this >>> purpose. Furthemore when the open>> consultation was requested by the Arab >>> ministers of communication, they>> requested that it should be conducted in >>> a multistakeholder format.>>>> We look forward for your participation in >>> the Arab IGF and its process.>>>> Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, Feb >>> 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote:>>>>> >>> Hi Qusai,>>> Could you please share with us the list of participants at >>> that meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I have real concern with contnuous oversight >>> of some gov-organizations>>> of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders >>> involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> Khaled Koubaa>>>>>> Sent by an Android >>> phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :>>>>>> We warmly >>> congratulate this >>> development and look forward to including>>> this in our >>> Calendar.>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti < >>> qshatti at gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:>>>> I would like to >>> take the opportunity to announce the establshment of>>>> the Arab IGF >>> (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>>>> >>> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the >>> first>>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF >>> announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the >>> Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A Multistakeholder >>> open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>>>> the Arab Internet >>> Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>>>> 31/1 – 1/2/2012 >>> in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by>>>> the League >>> of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social>>>> Commission >>> of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>>> >>> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait>>>> >>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF>>>> >>> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from>>>> >>> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations >>> in>>>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively >>> in>>>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the >>> Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open consultation was carried based on the >>> request of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology >>> Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders >>> on the need for an Arab IGF. The>>>> ministers requested it after receiving >>> the outcome of an expert group>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA >>> in October 2010 which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on >>> Internet Governance with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in the Arab >>> World.>>>>>>>> During >>> the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need>>>> and >>> the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in>>>> >>> the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report>>>> >>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants >>> and>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the >>> Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers >>> (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and >>> recommended the>>>> active participation of all stakeholders, including >>> governments, in the>>>> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> The participants in the >>> open consultations focused also on the goals>>>> of the AIGF and its >>> structure. There was consent to adopt a structure>>>> similar to the IGF’s >>> current structure with a secretariat and a>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory >>> Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>>>> Kuwait Information Technology >>> Society to host the >>> First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early October 2012 and a proposal was >>> made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National Telecommunication Regulatory >>> Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>>>> *. There was an agreement and >>> consent on both proposals by the>>>> participants. It was agreed that a >>> public announcement for the MAG>>>> membership will be made to give the >>> opportunity for all stakeholders in the>>>> Arab world to express their >>> interest to participate in it.>>>>>>>> The open consultation recommended >>> that the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> · Focus on discussing public policies >>> related to Internet>>>> Governance especially in the areas of access, >>> stability, security and>>>> development.>>>>>>>> · Facilitate the >>> exchange of information, best practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned >>> by involving experts, technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> · >>> Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified>>>> Arab >>> views on priorities >>> and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>>>> needs related to >>> Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> · Discuss emerging issues and >>> present recommendations on it.>>>>>>>> · Build and develop capacity >>> in Internet Governance as well>>>> as improve the participation of all >>> stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> possible resources of knowledge and >>> expertise.>>>>>>>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and >>> enhance the>>>> Arab role in formulating Internet Governance >>> policies.>>>>>>>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and >>> other>>>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and >>> expertise.>>>>>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________>>>> You >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>>> To be removed from the list, >>> visit:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> For all >>> other list information and functions, see:>>>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit your profile >>> and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> -->>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________>>> You >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> For all other list >>> information and functions, see:>>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>> To edit your profile and >>> to find the IGC's charter, see:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851<%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 >>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 15 10:26:42 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:26:42 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominating Committee Report In-Reply-To: <4F3BB5F0.2090401@communisphere.com> References: <0F27FBD9-EBE5-4ED7-9F7E-511F11929CE8@acm.org> <4F3A7FC7.7030502@communisphere.com> <4F3BB5F0.2090401@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, It is with great pleasure that I enclose the MAG Nominating Committee Report to the Caucus. Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Lowenhaupt Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:41 AM Subject: MAG Nominating Committee Report To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Cc: "nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org" Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro, Please find attached the final report of the MAG Nominating Committee. For the committee, Thomas Lowenhaupt -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 2012 MAG Nominating Committee Report 2-11-12.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 67853 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 khaled.koubaa at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 10:39:35 2012 From: khaled.koubaa at gmail.com (Khaled KOUBAA) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:39:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: References: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F3B9D0E.7020308@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F3BD1B7.90403@gmail.com> Dear Qusai, Please note that my email is not personal not against your effort nor ESCWA one. And it is not because I was not invited as person. I am sure that you are aware about Youth role and that you will provide them with great opportunities. What I would honestly like to see is a real civil society with enough knowledge about critical IG issues playing a continuous role at regional and local level. Regards, Khaled Le 15/02/2012 16:20, Qusai AlShatti a écrit : > Dear Khaled and Hanan > Thank you Hanan for your kind comments and thank you khaled for > raising your concerns. The fact that someone was not there in the > meeting does not mean that the meeting was not set in the right way or > did not comply with multistakeholder participation. Actually as I have > mentioned in a previous input and echoed by some of my colleagues, the > open consulation was inclusive, open and publicly anounced for > participation. > > However what khaled have in mind is what we are planning for the Arab > IGF. We do want the Arab youth who drived change in the Arab world and > still doing it to be the main dirve of the AIGF. I believe AIGFshould > be a dialouge space for them. It should allow us to exchange views > with the youth as well as listen to them. > > We need also to bare in mind that the purpose of the open consultation > that took place in Beirut was only to discuss the launch of the AIGF > and I think all of us agree that it is important to us. The planning > of AIGF and its program are our upcoming activities. It will start > with a public announcement for the AIGF MAG membership and we look > forward to all stakeholders to express their interest and participate > in the AIGF MAG. > > Let us look forward to make the upcoming AIGF a successful one by > making it inclusive, transparent and open to all with emphasis on Arab > youth and activists. > > Regards, > > Qusai AlShatti > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Hanane Boujemi > wrote: > > Kahled > > I get your point and I can confirm that civil society fingerprints > are quite significant in setting the scene of the AIGF even though > there were only few members present. > > Now that the process took off effectively with Kuwait taking the > lead in organizing the first AIGF (and thanks to Qusai for his > constant support) and ESCWA as well who really worked hard to get > this process out of the door. We have to join forces to make it a > successful true open forum to all parties concerned. There will be > open consultations to decide on the themes and workshops and > that's where civil society from the region must be ready to raise > the main issues at stake vis-a-vis IG. > > There is no chance for the AIGF to be another episode in > the oppression soap opera , power is now changing as you said and > it's in the hand of the common man thanks to the Internet. > > Hanane > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Khaled KOUBAA > > wrote: > > Hanane, > The AICTO is a Governmental-Organization and does not > represent the civil society. > You know more than me that they are really very few of real > civil society "free" and "independent" CSO in the Arab World. > The private sector is as well governed in a big part by > governments. So what we will have is a Arab IGF where what the > governments will propose will be congratulated and accepted by > the participants. > Let's be honest with ourselves, are we just continuing to do > the same "cinema" than before ? > I think that a region like the Arab region where there is now > huge geopolitical regional change, revolutions in some > countries, power changing in some others, and all this with a > big role being played by Internet. > Do you think an Arab IGF can be made like this ? We need a > real participatory process. > Where is the revolution leaders ? where is the Internet and > Human rights activists ? are they involved ? will the be > invited ? I don't think so. > The same old pro-dictators continue to play the same game in > our countries. > > Khaled > > Le 14/02/2012 21:18, Hanane Boujemi a écrit : >> >> Kahlid&Tijani, >> >> There was a lady from Tunisia Ms. Roukia who represented Arab >> ICT ORG. The whole AIGF process was delayed for one year due >> to the Arab spring and ESCWA had to organize the last >> consultation meeting to establish the forum very quickly and >> it might explain the reason why other CS ORGs from the Arab >> region did not manage to participate. >> >> I was very much involved since 2009 in this process. I >> participated in the consultaions that took place in 2010 and >> 2012 and I also constributed with other CS members from the >> Arab region to define the Arab IG roadmap published by >> UNESCWA and based on which the forum will be organized. I >> suppose that the emerging issues since the roadmap was >> drafted will be also taken into consideration to define the >> agenda of the first edition. >> >> Please do follow @IGFArab on Twitter and ArabIGF on Facebook >> for more updates about the whole process. It will be great if >> we get as many Arab CS members involved. It will be also >> great to do some outreach at the local level to define the IG >> process since the concept is still ambiguous to the masses in >> the region. I am afraid a lot of work needs to be done in >> this regard. >> >> Hanane Boujemi >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah >> > wrote: >> >> >> Dear Quasi, >> Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF >> activities? >> I hope that if there is some remote participation >> facility, some of our Group Members may join from Dubai, >> Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia. >> We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in >> AIGF formation activities. >> Thanks and Regards >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 >> AM PKT Qusai AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they >> were there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, >> Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> <>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com >> > wrote:>>> >> I am just wondering whether the UAE ICT regulators were >> also there at the>> planning. If not, I am happy to >> facilitate the introduction? Let me know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, >> Feb 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti >> > wrote:>>>> >> Dear Khaled:>> We wish that you were there with us in >> Beirut. The open consultation were>> conducted in an open >> transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were>> all >> participants from all multistakeholder groups actively >> engaged in an>> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF >> and in drafting the outcomes of the>> open consultations. >> I don't have the list of final participants but all>> >> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. >> Actually we>> requested the ESCWA and >> LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> multistakeholders >> representation in the open consultations. A public>> >> announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when >> the open>> consultation was requested by the Arab >> ministers of communication, they>> requested that it >> should be conducted in a multistakeholder format.>>>> We >> look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and >> its process.>>>> Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, >> Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa >> > >wrote:>>>>> Hi Qusai,>>> >> Could you please share with us the list of participants >> at that meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I have real concern >> with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations>>> of >> the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders >> involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> Khaled Koubaa>>>>>> Sent >> by an Android phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta >> T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com >> > a écrit >> :>>>>>> We warmly congratulate this >> development and look forward to including>>> this in our >> Calendar.>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai >> AlShatti > >wrote:>>>>>>> Dear >> Colleagues:>>>> I would like to take the opportunity to >> announce the establshment of>>>> the Arab IGF (AIGF). The >> first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>>>> >> Information Technology Society which will be held in >> Kuwait on the first>>>> week of October 2012. I am >> attaching the AIGF announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the Arab >> Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A >> Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the >> launch of>>>> the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) >> was held during the period of>>>> 31/1 – 1/2/2012 in >> Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized >> by>>>> the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation >> Economic and Social>>>> Commission of Western Asia >> (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>>> >> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored >> by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC >> and was attended by the IGF>>>> secretariat. More than 50 >> participants representing stakeholders from>>>> >> governments, private sector, civil society and regional >> organizations in>>>> the Arab World attended the open >> consultation and engaged actively in>>>> discussing the >> importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the >> Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open consultation was carried >> based on the request of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication >> and Information Technology Council of Ministers >> (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on >> the need for an Arab IGF. The>>>> ministers requested it >> after receiving the outcome of an expert group>>>> >> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 >> which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on >> Internet Governance with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in >> the Arab World.>>>>>>>> During >> the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the >> need>>>> and the importance for the Arab IGF especially >> with the turn of events in>>>> the region and the major >> role of the Internet in these events. A report>>>> >> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the >> participants and>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to >> the Executive Bureau of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication >> and Information Technology Council of Ministers >> (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, >> endorsed it and recommended the>>>> active participation >> of all stakeholders, including governments, in the>>>> >> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> The participants in the open >> consultations focused also on the goals>>>> of the AIGF >> and its structure. There was consent to adopt a >> structure>>>> similar to the IGF’s current structure with >> a secretariat and a>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory >> Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>>>> Kuwait >> Information Technology Society to host the >> First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early October 2012 and a >> proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National >> Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF >> secretariat>>>> *. There was an agreement and consent on >> both proposals by the>>>> participants. It was agreed >> that a public announcement for the MAG>>>> membership >> will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders >> in the>>>> Arab world to express their interest to >> participate in it.>>>>>>>> The open consultation >> recommended that the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> · Focus >> on discussing public policies related to Internet>>>> >> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, >> security and>>>> development.>>>>>>>> · >> Facilitate the exchange of information, best >> practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving >> experts, technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> · >> Gather different opinions and build consensus for >> unified>>>> Arab views on priorities >> and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>>>> needs >> related to Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> · >> Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on >> it.>>>>>>>> · Build and develop capacity in >> Internet Governance as well>>>> as improve the >> participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> >> possible resources of knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> · >> Communicate globally the Arab positions and >> enhance the>>>> Arab role in formulating Internet >> Governance policies.>>>>>>>> · Outreach with the >> Internet Governance Forum and other>>>> regional IGFs >> with purpose of exchanging knowledge and >> expertise.>>>>>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________>>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the >> list:>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed >> from the list, visit:>>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> For all >> other list information and functions, see:>>>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit >> your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> -->>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: >> @SalanietaT>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: >> +679 998 2851 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> ____________________________________________________________>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> To be removed >> from the list, visit:>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> For all other >> list information and functions, see:>>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>> To edit your >> profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>> Tweeter: >> @SalanietaT>> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>>>>>>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 15 10:43:03 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:43:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: I understand that Michael is in a win-win option. Which means that civil society should serve as an outlet and to outlet of commercial enterprises. Being consumer representatives and consumer of ICT products, we are in busness logic. Digital technology is the result of all the previous revolutions known as the world. But in the cycle of the digital revolution, the consumer has a prominent place and unavoidable. The true reality is that we are all consumers of ICT products. But the question arises: what is civil society represents an unnecessary expense in all these discussions? In my humble opinion, should we not consider the problem of funding as a justification for the approach of inclusiveness? Taking into account the principle of multi-stakeholders? Participation of civil society must be viewed in terms of investment prospects in terms of multiple concerns raised by civil society actors. It should be a positive economic reading regarding the presence of entities of civil society. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/14 michael gurstein > > Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and > there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of funding > may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give > precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and > what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of something > (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its > success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is this > the principle that we want to accept? > > We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote participation > as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision > making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the > legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple > layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are allowed > "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on > outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second > class" position -- since we know how much of outcome determination/decision > making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f > interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the > practice we want to accept? > > 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 qshatti at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 10:57:15 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:57:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: <4F3BD1B7.90403@gmail.com> References: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F3B9D0E.7020308@gmail.com> <4F3BD1B7.90403@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Khaled: I never took your emails as personal or against someone.This notion never came to my mind and knowing you make me sure of that. You have concerns that are important and needed to be addressed. I just wanted to address these concerns and assure that we both have the same ideas in mind., Good to Hear from you and looking forward for your participation,, Qusai On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: > Dear Qusai, > Please note that my email is not personal not against your effort nor > ESCWA one. And it is not because I was not invited as person. > I am sure that you are aware about Youth role and that you will provide > them with great opportunities. > What I would honestly like to see is a real civil society with enough > knowledge about critical IG issues playing a continuous role at regional > and local level. > Regards, > > Khaled > > Le 15/02/2012 16:20, Qusai AlShatti a écrit : > > Dear Khaled and Hanan > Thank you Hanan for your kind comments and thank you khaled for raising > your concerns. The fact that someone was not there in the meeting does not > mean that the meeting was not set in the right way or did not comply with > multistakeholder participation. Actually as I have mentioned in a previous > input and echoed by some of my colleagues, the open consulation was > inclusive, open and publicly anounced for participation. > > However what khaled have in mind is what we are planning for the Arab IGF. > We do want the Arab youth who drived change in the Arab world and still > doing it to be the main dirve of the AIGF. I believe AIGFshould be a > dialouge space for them. It should allow us to exchange views with the > youth as well as listen to them. > > We need also to bare in mind that the purpose of the open consultation > that took place in Beirut was only to discuss the launch of the AIGF and I > think all of us agree that it is important to us. The planning of AIGF and > its program are our upcoming activities. It will start with a public > announcement for the AIGF MAG membership and we look forward to all > stakeholders to express their interest and participate in the AIGF MAG. > > Let us look forward to make the upcoming AIGF a successful one by making > it inclusive, transparent and open to all with emphasis on Arab youth and > activists. > > Regards, > > Qusai AlShatti > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Hanane Boujemi wrote: > >> Kahled >> >> I get your point and I can confirm that civil society fingerprints are >> quite significant in setting the scene of the AIGF even though there were >> only few members present. >> >> Now that the process took off effectively with Kuwait taking the lead >> in organizing the first AIGF (and thanks to Qusai for his constant support) >> and ESCWA as well who really worked hard to get this process out of the >> door. We have to join forces to make it a successful true open forum to >> all parties concerned. There will be open consultations to decide on the >> themes and workshops and that's where civil society from the region must be >> ready to raise the main issues at stake vis-a-vis IG. >> >> There is no chance for the AIGF to be another episode in >> the oppression soap opera , power is now changing as you said and it's in >> the hand of the common man thanks to the Internet. >> >> Hanane >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: >> >>> Hanane, >>> The AICTO is a Governmental-Organization and does not represent the >>> civil society. >>> You know more than me that they are really very few of real civil >>> society "free" and "independent" CSO in the Arab World. >>> The private sector is as well governed in a big part by governments. So >>> what we will have is a Arab IGF where what the governments will propose >>> will be congratulated and accepted by the participants. >>> Let's be honest with ourselves, are we just continuing to do the same >>> "cinema" than before ? >>> I think that a region like the Arab region where there is now huge >>> geopolitical regional change, revolutions in some countries, power changing >>> in some others, and all this with a big role being played by Internet. >>> Do you think an Arab IGF can be made like this ? We need a real >>> participatory process. >>> Where is the revolution leaders ? where is the Internet and Human rights >>> activists ? are they involved ? will the be invited ? I don't think so. >>> The same old pro-dictators continue to play the same game in our >>> countries. >>> >>> Khaled >>> >>> Le 14/02/2012 21:18, Hanane Boujemi a écrit : >>> >>> Kahlid&Tijani, >>> >>> There was a lady from Tunisia Ms. Roukia who represented Arab ICT ORG. >>> The whole AIGF process was delayed for one year due to the Arab spring and >>> ESCWA had to organize the last consultation meeting to establish the forum >>> very quickly and it might explain the reason why other CS ORGs from the >>> Arab region did not manage to participate. >>> >>> I was very much involved since 2009 in this process. I participated in >>> the consultaions that took place in 2010 and 2012 and I also constributed >>> with other CS members from the Arab region to define the Arab IG roadmap >>> published by UNESCWA and based on which the forum will be organized. I >>> suppose that the emerging issues since the roadmap was drafted will be also >>> taken into consideration to define the agenda of the first edition. >>> >>> Please do follow @IGFArab on Twitter and ArabIGF on Facebook for more >>> updates about the whole process. It will be great if we get as many Arab CS >>> members involved. It will be also great to do some outreach at the local >>> level to define the IG process since the concept is still ambiguous to the >>> masses in the region. I am afraid a lot of work needs to be done in this >>> regard. >>> >>> Hanane Boujemi >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Dear Quasi, >>>> Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF activities? >>>> I hope that if there is some remote participation facility, some of our >>>> Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia. >>>> We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in AIGF formation >>>> activities. >>>> Thanks and Regards >>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>> ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT Qusai >>>> AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb >>>> 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <> >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:>>> I am just wondering >>>> whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the>> planning. If not, I >>>> am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb >>>> 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>> >>>> Dear Khaled:>> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open >>>> consultation were>> conducted in an open transparent inclusive >>>> multistakeholder process were>> all participants from all multistakeholder >>>> groups actively engaged in an>> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and >>>> in drafting the outcomes of the>> open consultations. I don't have the list >>>> of final participants but all>> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were >>>> represented. Actually we>> requested the ESCWA and >>>> LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> multistakeholders representation >>>> in the open consultations. A public>> announcement was made for this >>>> purpose. Furthemore when the open>> consultation was requested by the Arab >>>> ministers of communication, they>> requested that it should be conducted in >>>> a multistakeholder format.>>>> We look forward for your participation in >>>> the Arab IGF and its process.>>>> Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, Feb >>>> 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote:>>>>> >>>> Hi Qusai,>>> Could you please share with us the list of participants at >>>> that meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I have real concern with contnuous oversight >>>> of some gov-organizations>>> of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders >>>> involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> Khaled Koubaa>>>>>> Sent by an Android >>>> phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :>>>>>> We warmly >>>> congratulate this >>>> development and look forward to including>>> this in our >>>> Calendar.>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti < >>>> qshatti at gmail.com>wrote:>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:>>>> I would like to >>>> take the opportunity to announce the establshment of>>>> the Arab IGF >>>> (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>>>> >>>> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the >>>> first>>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF >>>> announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the >>>> Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A Multistakeholder >>>> open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>>>> the Arab Internet >>>> Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>>>> 31/1 – 1/2/2012 >>>> in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by>>>> the League >>>> of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social>>>> Commission >>>> of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>>> >>>> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait>>>> >>>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF>>>> >>>> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from>>>> >>>> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations >>>> in>>>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively >>>> in>>>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the >>>> Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open consultation was carried based on the >>>> request of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology >>>> Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders >>>> on the need for an Arab IGF. The>>>> ministers requested it after receiving >>>> the outcome of an expert group>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA >>>> in October 2010 which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on >>>> Internet Governance with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in the Arab >>>> World.>>>>>>>> During >>>> the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need>>>> and >>>> the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in>>>> >>>> the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report>>>> >>>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants >>>> and>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the >>>> Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers >>>> (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and >>>> recommended the>>>> active participation of all stakeholders, including >>>> governments, in the>>>> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> The participants in the >>>> open consultations focused also on the goals>>>> of the AIGF and its >>>> structure. There was consent to adopt a structure>>>> similar to the IGF’s >>>> current structure with a secretariat and a>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory >>>> Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>>>> Kuwait Information Technology >>>> Society to host the >>>> First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early October 2012 and a proposal was >>>> made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National Telecommunication Regulatory >>>> Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>>>> *. There was an agreement and >>>> consent on both proposals by the>>>> participants. It was agreed that a >>>> public announcement for the MAG>>>> membership will be made to give the >>>> opportunity for all stakeholders in the>>>> Arab world to express their >>>> interest to participate in it.>>>>>>>> The open consultation recommended >>>> that the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> · Focus on discussing public policies >>>> related to Internet>>>> Governance especially in the areas of access, >>>> stability, security and>>>> development.>>>>>>>> · Facilitate the >>>> exchange of information, best practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned >>>> by involving experts, technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> · >>>> Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified>>>> Arab >>>> views on priorities >>>> and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>>>> needs related to >>>> Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> · Discuss emerging issues and >>>> present recommendations on it.>>>>>>>> · Build and develop capacity >>>> in Internet Governance as well>>>> as improve the participation of all >>>> stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> possible resources of knowledge and >>>> expertise.>>>>>>>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and >>>> enhance the>>>> Arab role in formulating Internet Governance >>>> policies.>>>>>>>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and >>>> other>>>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and >>>> expertise.>>>>>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________>>>> You >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>>> To be removed from the list, >>>> visit:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> For all >>>> other list information and functions, see:>>>> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit your profile >>>> and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> -->>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>> >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: +679 998 2851<%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>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> 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 fatimacambronero at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 13:18:31 2012 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:18:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] 2012 IGF Theme Survey [IGC: Have Your Say?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, As you know Open Consultations are currently underway in Geneva. We are currently doing a quick online survey to gather feedback on what the 2012 IGF theme should be. Have your say today! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFk1WUZVS1hqWUJBakM5TXFIVDRHMmc6MQ The results of this survey will be published on the website and also sent to the IGF Secretariat. Best Regards, Fatima & Sala -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Directora de Investigaciones *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ *@facambronero* *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 15 13:32:45 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:32:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Dear Mike, I hope the mosquitoes are giving you a chance (as they say here) :-) > > Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and > there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of funding > may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give > precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and > what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of something > (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its > success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is this > the principle that we want to accept? > The sentence below is copied from the ISOC submission to the Open Consultation under the sub-heading Funding: This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of value to its participants. I have grave concerns where value is always equated with money - which I think is in accordance with what you write above? > We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote participation > as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision > making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the > legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple > layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are allowed > "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on > outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second > class" position -- since we know how much of outcome determination/decision > making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f > interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the > practice we want to accept? > I would like to look at this another way. I strongly suspect that, if I were a 'youth' of the category described as 'digital natives', I might very well not understand your concern. Presence in the physical sense is losing relevance. My children grew up 5000 miles away from their grandparents. Although a visit from Granny was eagerly anticipated she was still a stranger to feel shy with when she arrived. Our granddaughter is growing up 5000 miles away as well, but thanks to Skype we've never been strangers, although we have only ever occupied the same space three times for about 5 weeks in all during her lifetime. One of the people 'at' the MAG meeting this morning was in San Francisco, rushing off to lobby - electronically - as soon as the meeting was finished. So I would incline to the idea that remote participation is fast losing its 'second class' status, and would push hard for the 'right' that remote participants should NEVER be treated as second class, although they often are now. > Deirdre -- “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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 13:39:41 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:39:41 +1300 Subject: [governance] 2012 IGF Theme Survey [IGC: Have Your Say?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, As you know Open Consultations are currently underway in Geneva. We are currently doing a quick online survey to gather feedback on what the 2012 IGF theme should be. Have your say today! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFk1WUZVS1hqWUJBakM5TXFIVDRHMmc6MQ The results of this survey will be published on the website and also sent to the IGF Secretariat. Best Regards, Fatima Cambronero [MAG Nominee] & Izumi and Sala as Coordinators of IGC -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Directora de Investigaciones *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ *@facambronero* *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 15 20:32:24 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:32:24 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: 2012 IGF Theme Survey [IGC: Have Your Say?] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies for the duplicate postings, we had trouble with mail delivery to the list hence the duplicates which were sent some 8 hours ago and have just reached the list. Sala On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, > > As you know Open Consultations are currently underway in Geneva. We are > currently doing a quick online survey to gather feedback on what the 2012 > IGF theme should be. Have your say today! > > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFk1WUZVS1hqWUJBakM5TXFIVDRHMmc6MQ > > The results of this survey will be published on the website and also sent > to the IGF Secretariat. > > > Best Regards, > > > Fatima Cambronero [MAG Nominee] & Izumi and Sala as Coordinators of IGC > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > Directora de Investigaciones > *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* > http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ > > *@facambronero* > > *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Feb 16 03:50:14 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:50:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <84E53FCE-4476-4790-ADA3-063A1A3DDD73@ella.com> On 15 Feb 2012, at 19:32, Deirdre Williams wrote > I would like to look at this another way. I strongly suspect that, if I were a 'youth' of the category described as 'digital natives', I might very well not understand your concern. Presence in the physical sense is losing relevance. My children grew up 5000 miles away from their grandparents. Although a visit from Granny was eagerly anticipated she was still a stranger to feel shy with when she arrived. Our granddaughter is growing up 5000 miles away as well, but thanks to Skype we've never been strangers, although we have only ever occupied the same space three times for about 5 weeks in all during her lifetime. One of the people 'at' the MAG meeting this morning was in San Francisco, rushing off to lobby - electronically - as soon as the meeting was finished. So I would incline to the idea that remote participation is fast losing its 'second class' status, and would push hard for the 'right' that remote participants should NEVER be treated as second class, although they often are now. Hi, I agree with this but with two caveats: 1. the event must stay at the cusp of remote participation capabilities, with enablers at the event and the ability for full two way communications with video and good quality voice. The IGF has done ok, but it is certainly not using the full range of capabilities. As in all things, the IGF is a very conservative organization, with a small budget and a very strong commitment to preserving the status quo. 2. many of those in remote areas of the Internet do not have the bandwidth to particpate, so even if full remote particpation capabilties were avaialble many would not be able to use them 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 16 03:54:05 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:54:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: at 14:32:45 on Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Deirdre Williams writes >One of the people 'at' the MAG meeting >this morning was in San Francisco, rushing off to lobby - electronically - >as soon as the meeting was finished. So I would incline to the idea that >remote participation is fast losing its 'second class' status, and would >push hard for the 'right' that remote participants should NEVER be treated >as second class, although they often are now. In order to manage people's expectations, I think there should be a grading system for remote participation. For example, is there a live audio feed, a live video feed, transcriptions live or transcriptions archived. Is there an archive of the webcast. Can remote participants have questions read out, or can they speak to the meeting from their remote location. Is there a facility for chat between remote participants. I'm not suggesting that all of these options have to be available for every meeting, but when there's an expectation of being able to participate (or indeed as might be the case for today's MAG meeting, to remotely observe, which is slightly different) and it turns out the facility is very limited, it can be frustrating. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 04:10:02 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:40:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Dear Mike, What IGC needs to work on, with support from civil society organization and Internet organizations, is a Civil Society Fund. The fund could be set up with a purpose of improving Civil Society participation in MAG, IGF and other important events, and could be large enough to cover requirements other than travel and participation. A group of IGC leaders, together with some well connected volunteers could begin work on this and set us such a fund. The contribution could come from individuals and civil society organizations. We could also reach out to , and from those Business Corporations and Governments which are willing to contribute to the fund unconditionally. If this can't be done, achieving a balance in the multi-stakeholder environment would be difficult. Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and > there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of funding > may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give > precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and > what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of something > (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its > success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is this > the principle that we want to accept? > > We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote participation > as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision > making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the > legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple > layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are allowed > "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on > outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second > class" position -- since we know how much of outcome determination/decision > making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f > interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the > practice we want to accept? > > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 04:30:21 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:30:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Dear Roland, I am living testimony to the frustration you speak about - having got up at 4.30 to be ready at 5 for the meeting - I can't find the meeting. :-( Can anybody help please? Deirdre On 16 February 2012 04:54, Roland Perry wrote: > at 14:32:45 on Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> writes > > One of the people 'at' the MAG meeting >> this morning was in San Francisco, rushing off to lobby - electronically - >> as soon as the meeting was finished. So I would incline to the idea that >> remote participation is fast losing its 'second class' status, and would >> push hard for the 'right' that remote participants should NEVER be treated >> as second class, although they often are now. >> > > In order to manage people's expectations, I think there should be a > grading system for remote participation. > > For example, is there a live audio feed, a live video feed, transcriptions > live or transcriptions archived. Is there an archive of the webcast. Can > remote participants have questions read out, or can they speak to the > meeting from their remote location. Is there a facility for chat between > remote participants. > > I'm not suggesting that all of these options have to be available for > every meeting, but when there's an expectation of being able to participate > (or indeed as might be the case for today's MAG meeting, to remotely > observe, which is slightly different) and it turns out the facility is very > limited, it can be frustrating. > -- > 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 katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 16 04:33:24 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:33:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <4F3CCD64.90409@eff.org> Is there a parallel Skype chat? Webex is not working well for me. pls help. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 16 04:42:37 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:42:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Twitter pirating smartphone contacts without user knowledge Message-ID: <4F3CCF8D.6060100@gmail.com> [From Foxconn through to Apple's oops about GPS tracking and now this... you can go to jail under ACTA but this kind of thing just warrants a small apology I suppose...] 15 February 2012 Last updated at 22:25 GMT Social apps 'harvest smartphone contacts' A woman holds her iPhone 4 in Hangzou, China 13 January 2012 Critics say Apple should not approve apps that copy user data, according to the company's own policies Twitter has admitted copying entire address books from smartphones and storing the data on its servers, often without customers' knowledge. Access to the address book is enabled when users click on the "Find Friends" feature on smartphone apps. Two US congressmen have written to Apple asking why the firm allows the practice on its iPhone, as it contravenes app developer guidelines. Twitter has said it will update its privacy policy to be more explicit. The practice came to light when an app developer in Singapore, Arun Thampi, noticed that his contacts had been copied from his iPhone address book without his consent by a social network called Path. Dave Morin, CEO of Path, apologised and said Path would ask users to opt in to share their contact information. However, he noted separately that it was an "industry best practice" to upload or import address book information. iPhone apps by social sites including Facebook, FourSquare, Instagram, Foodspotting and Yelp are also reported to access the address book. Permission not granted Critics have noted that these apps are all available for download from Apple's iTunes store, even though the practice of copying address book contacts without prior consent appears to violate its user guidelines. The Apple guidelines say: "Apps that read or write data outside its designated container area will be rejected." They add: "Apps cannot transmit data about a user without obtaining the user's prior permission." Social networks have said that data taken from smartphones - which includes names, phone numbers and email addresses - is used only to identify friends who used the same service, and notify the user. But sometimes the data appears to be taken without first informing the user, or indicating how long the information will be saved for. Twitter said it would update its app in the wake of the disclosure, and clarify its privacy policy for users. "We want to be clear and transparent in our communications with users. Along those lines, in our next app updates, which are coming soon, we are updating the language associated with Find Friends - to be more explicit," Twitter spokeswoman Carolyn Penner said. Currently, Twitter tells users that it "may customize your account with information such as a cellphone number for the delivery of SMS messages or your address book so that we can help you find Twitter users you know". Twitter informs iPhone users that it will "scan your contacts for people you already know on Twitter". However, the Los Angeles Times reported that the app in fact uploads every address book contact and stores it for 18 months - something not made clear by the app. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17051910 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 16 04:48:18 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:48:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <4F3CD0E2.2020304@eff.org> Hi folks, Someone is in the MAG room can Skype me in? is there a civil society Skype group? I'm not in today! On 2/16/12 1:30 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Roland, > I am living testimony to the frustration you speak about - having got > up at 4.30 to be ready at 5 for the meeting - I can't find the > meeting. :-( > Can anybody help please? > Deirdre > > On 16 February 2012 04:54, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > at 14:32:45 on Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Deirdre Williams > > > writes > > One of the people 'at' the MAG meeting > this morning was i, rushing off to lobby - electronically - > as soon as the meeting was finished. So I would incline to the > idea that > remote participation is fast losing its 'second class' status, > and would > push hard for the 'right' that remote participants should > NEVER be treated > as second class, although they often are now. > > > In order to manage people's expectations, I think there should be > a grading system for remote participation. > > For example, is there a live audio feed, a live video feed, > transcriptions live or transcriptions archived. Is there an > archive of the webcast. Can remote participants have questions > read out, or can they speak to the meeting from their remote > location. Is there a facility for chat between remote participants. > > I'm not suggesting that all of these options have to be available > for every meeting, but when there's an expectation of being able > to participate (or indeed as might be the case for today's MAG > meeting, to remotely observe, which is slightly different) and it > turns out the facility is very limited, it can be frustrating. > -- > 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 -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Feb 16 04:57:20 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:57:20 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF References: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F3B9D0E.7020308@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC7F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi just a comment from an "Outsider". A regional IGF is - like the global or national IGFs - an evolving "process". It is learning by doing. Deficiencies and weaknesses in the 1st meeting can be corrected in the second one. We have now the 5th meeting in Europe and it moved from a small kick start meeting, supported by an intergovernmental organisation (COE) in 2008 into a remakable event as you will see it in June 2012 in Stockholm. Will say, be patient, learn from your mistakes, stick to the principles of openess, inclusion, transparency, bottom up and multistakholderism and stumble forward! The most important thing is to get started! And this is what you do. Congratulations. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Qusai AlShatti [mailto:qshatti at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mi 15.02.2012 16:20 An: Hanane Boujemi Cc: Khaled KOUBAA; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Betreff: Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Dear Khaled and Hanan Thank you Hanan for your kind comments and thank you khaled for raising your concerns. The fact that someone was not there in the meeting does not mean that the meeting was not set in the right way or did not comply with multistakeholder participation. Actually as I have mentioned in a previous input and echoed by some of my colleagues, the open consulation was inclusive, open and publicly anounced for participation. However what khaled have in mind is what we are planning for the Arab IGF. We do want the Arab youth who drived change in the Arab world and still doing it to be the main dirve of the AIGF. I believe AIGFshould be a dialouge space for them. It should allow us to exchange views with the youth as well as listen to them. We need also to bare in mind that the purpose of the open consultation that took place in Beirut was only to discuss the launch of the AIGF and I think all of us agree that it is important to us. The planning of AIGF and its program are our upcoming activities. It will start with a public announcement for the AIGF MAG membership and we look forward to all stakeholders to express their interest and participate in the AIGF MAG. Let us look forward to make the upcoming AIGF a successful one by making it inclusive, transparent and open to all with emphasis on Arab youth and activists. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Hanane Boujemi wrote: Kahled I get your point and I can confirm that civil society fingerprints are quite significant in setting the scene of the AIGF even though there were only few members present. Now that the process took off effectively with Kuwait taking the lead in organizing the first AIGF (and thanks to Qusai for his constant support) and ESCWA as well who really worked hard to get this process out of the door. We have to join forces to make it a successful true open forum to all parties concerned. There will be open consultations to decide on the themes and workshops and that's where civil society from the region must be ready to raise the main issues at stake vis-a-vis IG. There is no chance for the AIGF to be another episode in the oppression soap opera , power is now changing as you said and it's in the hand of the common man thanks to the Internet. Hanane On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: Hanane, The AICTO is a Governmental-Organization and does not represent the civil society. You know more than me that they are really very few of real civil society "free" and "independent" CSO in the Arab World. The private sector is as well governed in a big part by governments. So what we will have is a Arab IGF where what the governments will propose will be congratulated and accepted by the participants. Let's be honest with ourselves, are we just continuing to do the same "cinema" than before ? I think that a region like the Arab region where there is now huge geopolitical regional change, revolutions in some countries, power changing in some others, and all this with a big role being played by Internet. Do you think an Arab IGF can be made like this ? We need a real participatory process. Where is the revolution leaders ? where is the Internet and Human rights activists ? are they involved ? will the be invited ? I don't think so. The same old pro-dictators continue to play the same game in our countries. Khaled Le 14/02/2012 21:18, Hanane Boujemi a écrit : Kahlid&Tijani, There was a lady from Tunisia Ms. Roukia who represented Arab ICT ORG. The whole AIGF process was delayed for one year due to the Arab spring and ESCWA had to organize the last consultation meeting to establish the forum very quickly and it might explain the reason why other CS ORGs from the Arab region did not manage to participate. I was very much involved since 2009 in this process. I participated in the consultaions that took place in 2010 and 2012 and I also constributed with other CS members from the Arab region to define the Arab IG roadmap published by UNESCWA and based on which the forum will be organized. I suppose that the emerging issues since the roadmap was drafted will be also taken into consideration to define the agenda of the first edition. Please do follow @IGFArab on Twitter and ArabIGF on Facebook for more updates about the whole process. It will be great if we get as many Arab CS members involved. It will be also great to do some outreach at the local level to define the IG process since the concept is still ambiguous to the masses in the region. I am afraid a lot of work needs to be done in this regard. Hanane Boujemi On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Dear Quasi, Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF activities? I hope that if there is some remote participation facility, some of our Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia. We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in AIGF formation activities. Thanks and Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT Qusai AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:>>> I am just wondering whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the>> planning. If not, I am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>> Dear Khaled:>> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were>> conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were>> all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an>> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the>> open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all>> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we>> requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public>> announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open>> consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they>> requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format.>>>> We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process.>>>> Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote:>>>>> Hi Qusai,>>> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations>>> of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> Khaled Koubaa>>>>>> Sent by an Android phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :>>>>>> We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including>>> this in our Calendar.>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:>>>> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of>>>> the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first>>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>>>> the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>>>> 31/1 - 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by>>>> the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social>>>> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>>> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF>>>> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from>>>> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in>>>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in>>>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The>>>> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in the Arab World.>>>>>>>> During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need>>>> and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in>>>> the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report>>>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the>>>> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the>>>> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals>>>> of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure>>>> similar to the IGF's current structure with a secretariat and a>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>>>> Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>>>> *. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the>>>> participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG>>>> membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the>>>> Arab world to express their interest to participate in it.>>>>>>>> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet>>>> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and>>>> development.>>>>>>>> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified>>>> Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>>>> needs related to Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it.>>>>>>>> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well>>>> as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> possible resources of knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the>>>> Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies.>>>>>>>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other>>>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 16 05:03:04 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:03:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: at 05:30:21 on Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Deirdre Williams writes >I am living testimony to the frustration you speak about - having got >up at 4.30 to be ready at 5 for the meeting - I can't find the meeting. Yesterday I noticed there was a "letterbox" transcript available in the same place as for the Open Consultations http://nubes.lscube.org/login but I had other commitments yesterday and didn't follow the proceedings. Today I can't see any way to remotely observe. -- 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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 05:09:34 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:09:34 +0100 Subject: FW: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] In-Reply-To: <8736C90210B741DBB70B7AB226FCF284@UserVAIO> References: <8736C90210B741DBB70B7AB226FCF284@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Hello Michael, With regard to legitimacy, I agree with you. Legitimacy that must be to base the principle of multi-stakeholders. The principle is universal, but enforcement remains in the logic level of each country taking their real political, economic and social. I'll meet you on the issue of funding the process. It is here that we must find appropriate answers. * Baudouin * 2012/2/13 michael gurstein > ** > Effective governance is in large part about the perception of > legitimacy. In the context of the Internet it is clear that in order for > the governance processes (including those processes about process as the > IGF to a considerable extent is) to have legitimacy there must be > participation by the various stakeholders. Certain of the stakeholder > groups notably the private sector and the technical community as supported > largely by the private sector have a clear set of (financial) interests in > effective governance. Governments as providing the regulatory > framework within which the Internet operates clearly have set of interests > in ensuring that national regulatory (and other) priorities are > reflected/accommodated within the goverance structures. > > There is also a clear public interest in Internet governance which under > other circumstances might be represented by governments but in the > particular circumstances of the Internet -- because of its rapidly > changing, somewhat technical and global reach -- is proving somewhat > difficult to channel public interest perspectives/requirements through > conventional governmental structures. > > This means that the public interest (or in another way the non-commercial, > non-technical, non-regulatory interests of Internet users) needs to be > represented in Internet Governance or the process lacks legitimacy. > > It is in the overall interests of the Internet and all stakeholders that > Internet Governance is perceived as legitimate (note the current issues > around the perceived illegitimacy of the ACTA process). > > Thus it is in the overall interest of Internet Governance (and the > Internet Governance processes) that there is a civil society participation > (the comparable OECD processes have already moved some considerable way > along the path to the recognition of this. > > The question then becomes how to ensure funding for this process. The > most appropriate and fairest way for funding such inclusion would be > through taxation however, since there is no global governance mechanism > through which such taxation might be enforced this is a major > problem. However, a few pennies from each of the domain > registrations/renewals would more than adequately fund the entire > Internet Governance process including ensuring public interest > participation in the MAG/IGF etc.etc. > > Such a contribution to orderly and effective Internet governance processes > should surely be of considerable interest to those most directly concerned > with ensuring an orderly and effective operation of the Internet. > > As per Deidre's earlier comments and other anecdotal information it would > appear that there is already considerable support coming informally from > that quarter for CS participation in the IGF and other Internet Governance > processes. Perhaps those who have been doing this informally may wish to > take a leadership in looking to formalize this process. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:42 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Robert Guerra > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: Feb 2012 Geneva meetings [Answers] > > Robert > > On Saturday 11 February 2012 07:08 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > Parminder, > > I don't agree with a walk out over the lack of financial support to > participate. > > > I only asked for a symbolic walkout, not a boycott of the session. It > would simply have been an expression of solidarity by those who are able to > make to the meeting on their own funds with those are not able to do so. > And hopefully, the event would help raise the visibility of this issue, > which for me and many of us in the South is at the heart of > multistakeholderism. And hopefully, this would have allowed those in the WG > on IGF improvements to insist that the WG report makes the necessary > provision. > > > The current economic situation is such that funding of any kind is hard to > obtain. Things will only get worse over the course of the next 2 years. > > > That is a lame excuse and we can do better than to fall prey to it. What > economic situation are you talking about? Why has this bad situation not > affected private funding for attendees? Why does it only affect public > funding? Every two months or so a large conference seems to get held in the > North on IG issues? Why doesnt the economic conditions affect this sudden > rash of IG meetings and conferences? Ensuring committed funding for MAG CS > members is what, about 30 international tickets and the cost of a few days > each of stay in a year. Even a small university and many NGOs hold a few > meetings every year which will entail such costs, what to speak of > governments and businesses. So lets be a little less patronising on this > key and central issue of global governance. NO, these 30 tickets is not the > issue. The issue is the deeper political economy equation whereby > representative global governance systems are sought to be increasingly > undermined in favour of private/ business led governance systems, where the > seats are allocated according to ones' existing power. We from the South > say a loud and clear NO to this creeping acquisition. This is the primary > issue in contention here. > > And by 'seeking alternative funds' I understand one means looking for > funds provided by businesses and other institutions that have pre-committed > ideology (like all of us) and their funding is steeped in conditions that > arise from this all but natural context. Sorry, I dont see these > 'alternative sources' as the replacement of the needed public funds that > are sina qua non of improving the participation of those who are otherwise > marginalised from these spaces. > > It for the IGC to decide what stand it wants or does not want to take on > this issue, but lets not confuse/shift issues. parminder > > > We need to stay engaged. At this point in time, I think the meeting > will just continue without us. > > I'm surprised there hasn't been more of a strategic effort on behalf of > those on this list to develop speaking points well in advance of the > meeting. We should work with those attending to make a strong statement and > concurrently aggressively seek alternate sources of funding to support CS > engagement. Walking away, is in my opinion, is not the best action at this > moment in time. > > Robert > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-11, at 1:15 AM, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > While I appreciate the problems with a 'withdrawal' strategy that some > have mentioned here (I did not mean to propose a full withdrawal at this > stage) we also need to do something concrete with regard to the existing > situation where there is de jure participation of CS but not de facto. This > is the all too familiar old debate of formal versus substantive rights or > negative (merely removing constraints) versus positive (actually ensuring > required results) rights. CS wants substantive participation not merely a > formal right to participate. > > In this regard, I suggest that we adopt two strategies. One, we become > more upfront and clear in our language about how we see this whole > business.... We have gone too soft in our statements I think. The CS tiger > should not lose its stripes becuase if it did it will neither remains a > tiger nor anything else, which unfortunately seem to be happening in this > MS-ist avataar of CS (MS as in multistakeholderism). > > Secondly, the time for letter writing is over, in my view. I was surprised > how our protest about the sudden withdrawal of funding to CS participants > for the WG on Improvements to the IGF was dealt with. We read out a > statement in the last meeting of the WG, and the secretariat of course gave > a technical response that the funder countries had recently reminded them > that only LDC participants could be covered and therefore.... However the > two donor countries who took this decision were in the room and chose > simply to ignore the CS's statement, and the problem that their decision > had caused to CS participation in WG. So much for their commitment to MSism! > > Therefore I understand that the official response to the CS funding issue > is that funding CS participants (even for the core committees etc) is not a > structural part of MSism. It is a charity which will be offered as pleases > the powers-that-be, and we cannot be whining about it. In response, we must > make our stand clear that funding for *CS participation is a structural > part of MSism, we dont accept MSism that doesnt include this. * > > And the best way to make this message heard loud and clear, I suggest, is > as follows: > > The CS contingent does a symbolic walk out of the MAG meeting for 1-2 > hours after reading out a statement that clearly puts out our stance in > this regard. And we let them know that they can well carry on their > business when the CS has left the room, but they must remember that is is > not multistakeholder; the *most* important part of non-government > stakeholders being not there. With this we also tell them that if the > situation continues like it is, civil society will have to reconsider their > options and strategies with regard to the whole IG process. > > If feasible, such a symbolic walk out can also be planned in the open > consultations. > > Then, if we do the above, at the WG on Improvements to the IGF meeting we > can bring the CS protest to the notice of the group and insist that the > report of the WG must include clear reference to regular UN funds (*plus*long term committed voluntary funds) that always covers CS participation in > MAG etc, but also to the extend possible in the IGF, as a basic condition > of legitimacy of these meetings. If required, we can also do a symbolic > walk out in the WG meeting to stress the point. > > (We can also hope that such a walk out from a UN meeting can draw some > press attention, and raise the heat on this issue.) > > Parminder > > > On Friday 10 February 2012 07:58 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote: > > Dear All, > > I believe a letter - probably 2 - are in order. There are 2 issues: CS > representation in the upcoming MAG meeting and the overall financial issue > for participation in the IGF process. > > CS representation in the upcoming MAG should be addressed to the Under > Secretary General and I believe asking to allow any attending CS > participation regardless of being in the MAG. > > The financial issue should be addressed to SG, making a recount of the > involution in the topic and remind him of the convenience for the UN system > to find solutions for CS participation in the IG process. CS colleagues in > NY could also help handing the letter in person to the SG. > > I would think CS should unify behind some alternatives for its financial > participation in the process, including one coming from UN regular budget, > and push for it in the CSTD WG as much as possible. > > I believe CS should remain in the process until 2015 because all actors > will consider it has participated anyway and because it can present a > better case from inside the process. > > If withdrawal remains an option, it should be done in a careful way > respect to timing and gain as much visibility as CS can. And before making > such movement, CS should consider which ways will be left to advocate its > positions. > > Best, > > Miguel > > Disclaimer > My ideas are those of my own and does not represent any position of my > employer or any other institution. > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message > 5VgEmfoYdV3K_nha9Q at mail.gmail.com>, at 10:03:09 on Fri, 10 Feb 2012, >> Baudouin Schombe writes >> >> Specifically, regarding the process of Internet governance, it should be >>> noted that civil society plays a major role in the implementation of ICT >>> projects and the fight against crime through virtual cyber crime. >>> >> >> This is an area I'm working in at the moment. And while my "free advice" >> always seems welcome, there's rarely any funding even for travelling >> expenses. It's a big problem that doesn't include just Cybercrime or >> Internet Governance issues. >> >> Pretty much the only concession is that as a speaker at a conference you >> will get the entrance fee waived. But we don't currently have fees to >> attend any IG conference I can think of (except perhaps some of the >> sessions at ITU World). >> -- >> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC FACILITATEUR GAID/AFRIQUE Membre At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com baudouin.schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lnalwoga at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 05:11:18 2012 From: lnalwoga at gmail.com (Lillian Nalwoga) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:11:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Dear all, I do agree that funding is crucial for civil society participation in the IGF and MAG. Further to Sivasubramanian's suggestion, I would like to also encourage MAG reps from the different regions, with support from the IGC community to individually take on the responsibility of convincing governments and other institutions in their constituencies to donate to this fund. So in addition to their stipulated responsibilities, this should be added. Instead of waiting for funds to come to them they should also do the fundraising themselves. my 2 cents... Lillian On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Mike, > > What IGC needs to work on, with support from civil society > organization and Internet organizations, is a Civil Society Fund. The > fund could be set up with a purpose of improving Civil Society > participation in MAG, IGF and other important events, and could be > large enough to cover requirements other than travel and > participation. A group of IGC leaders, together with some well > connected volunteers could begin work on this and set us such a fund. > The contribution could come from individuals and civil society > organizations. We could also reach out to , and from those Business > Corporations and Governments which are willing to contribute to the > fund unconditionally. If this can't be done, achieving a balance in > the multi-stakeholder environment would be difficult. > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:04 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > > Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and > > there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of > funding > > may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give > > precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and > > what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of > something > > (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its > > success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is > this > > the principle that we want to accept? > > > > We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote > participation > > as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision > > making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the > > legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple > > layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are > allowed > > "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on > > outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second > > class" position -- since we know how much of outcome > determination/decision > > making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f > > interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the > > practice we want to accept? > > > > 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 05:16:12 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:16:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: <4F3CCD64.90409@eff.org> References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> <4F3CCD64.90409@eff.org> Message-ID: ginger on skype now try her skype IGF 2012 On 16 February 2012 05:33, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Is there a parallel Skype chat? Webex is not working well for me. pls help. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 05:18:04 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:18:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> <4F3CCD64.90409@eff.org> Message-ID: please login to skype On 16 February 2012 06:16, Deirdre Williams wrote: > ginger on skype now > try her > skype IGF 2012 > > > On 16 February 2012 05:33, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> Is there a parallel Skype chat? Webex is not working well for me. pls >> help. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 05:24:19 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:24:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> <4F3CCD64.90409@eff.org> Message-ID: robert asks whether you are using webex link for yesterday or one for today? are you logged in to skype yet? On 16 February 2012 06:18, Deirdre Williams wrote: > please login to skype > > > On 16 February 2012 06:16, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> ginger on skype now >> try her >> skype IGF 2012 >> >> >> On 16 February 2012 05:33, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >>> Is there a parallel Skype chat? Webex is not working well for me. pls >>> help. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 16 05:25:24 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 02:25:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> <4F3CCD64.90409@eff.org> Message-ID: <4F3CD994.8000804@eff.org> I'm in skype but I do not see anyone in Skype. Everyone is off line! I am in webex. now is working.. On 2/16/12 2:24 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > robert asks whether you are using webex link for yesterday or one for > today? are you logged in to skype yet? > > On 16 February 2012 06:18, Deirdre Williams > > wrote: > > please login to skype > > > On 16 February 2012 06:16, Deirdre Williams > > > wrote: > > ginger on skype now > try her > skype IGF 2012 > > > On 16 February 2012 05:33, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: > > Is there a parallel Skype chat? Webex is not working well > for me. pls help. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 05:41:20 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:41:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC7F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F3B9D0E.7020308@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC7F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang: We know you as a good educator when it comes to Internet Governance especially through the IG School initiatives that launched. We thank you for your enlighting advice and we will build on it hopefully. We hope that you will continue in advicing us to improve the AIGF. Thank you Wolfgang,, Qusai AlShatti 2012/2/16 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Hi > > just a comment from an "Outsider". A regional IGF is - like the global or > national IGFs - an evolving "process". It is learning by doing. > Deficiencies and weaknesses in the 1st meeting can be corrected in the > second one. We have now the 5th meeting in Europe and it moved from a small > kick start meeting, supported by an intergovernmental organisation (COE) in > 2008 into a remakable event as you will see it in June 2012 in Stockholm. > Will say, be patient, learn from your mistakes, stick to the principles of > openess, inclusion, transparency, bottom up and multistakholderism and > stumble forward! The most important thing is to get started! And this is > what you do. Congratulations. > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Qusai AlShatti [mailto:qshatti at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Mi 15.02.2012 16:20 > An: Hanane Boujemi > Cc: Khaled KOUBAA; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah; > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > Betreff: Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF > > > Dear Khaled and Hanan > Thank you Hanan for your kind comments and thank you khaled for raising > your concerns. The fact that someone was not there in the meeting does not > mean that the meeting was not set in the right way or did not comply with > multistakeholder participation. Actually as I have mentioned in a previous > input and echoed by some of my colleagues, the open consulation was > inclusive, open and publicly anounced for participation. > > However what khaled have in mind is what we are planning for the Arab IGF. > We do want the Arab youth who drived change in the Arab world and still > doing it to be the main dirve of the AIGF. I believe AIGFshould be a > dialouge space for them. It should allow us to exchange views with the > youth as well as listen to them. > > We need also to bare in mind that the purpose of the open consultation > that took place in Beirut was only to discuss the launch of the AIGF and I > think all of us agree that it is important to us. The planning of AIGF and > its program are our upcoming activities. It will start with a public > announcement for the AIGF MAG membership and we look forward to all > stakeholders to express their interest and participate in the AIGF MAG. > > Let us look forward to make the upcoming AIGF a successful one by making > it inclusive, transparent and open to all with emphasis on Arab youth and > activists. > > Regards, > > Qusai AlShatti > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Hanane Boujemi > wrote: > > > Kahled > > > I get your point and I can confirm that civil society fingerprints > are quite significant in setting the scene of the AIGF even though there > were only few members present. > > Now that the process took off effectively with Kuwait taking the > lead in organizing the first AIGF (and thanks to Qusai for his constant > support) and ESCWA as well who really worked hard to get this process out > of the door. We have to join forces to make it a successful true open > forum to all parties concerned. There will be open consultations to decide > on the themes and workshops and that's where civil society from the region > must be ready to raise the main issues at stake vis-a-vis IG. > > There is no chance for the AIGF to be another episode in the > oppression soap opera , power is now changing as you said and it's in the > hand of the common man thanks to the Internet. > > > Hanane > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Khaled KOUBAA < > khaled.koubaa at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hanane, > The AICTO is a Governmental-Organization and does not > represent the civil society. > You know more than me that they are really very few of real > civil society "free" and "independent" CSO in the Arab World. > The private sector is as well governed in a big part by > governments. So what we will have is a Arab IGF where what the governments > will propose will be congratulated and accepted by the participants. > Let's be honest with ourselves, are we just continuing to > do the same "cinema" than before ? > I think that a region like the Arab region where there is > now huge geopolitical regional change, revolutions in some countries, power > changing in some others, and all this with a big role being played by > Internet. > Do you think an Arab IGF can be made like this ? We need a > real participatory process. > Where is the revolution leaders ? where is the Internet and > Human rights activists ? are they involved ? will the be invited ? I don't > think so. > The same old pro-dictators continue to play the same game > in our countries. > > Khaled > > Le 14/02/2012 21:18, Hanane Boujemi a écrit : > > Kahlid&Tijani, > > There was a lady from Tunisia Ms. Roukia who > represented Arab ICT ORG. The whole AIGF process was delayed for one year > due to the Arab spring and ESCWA had to organize the last consultation > meeting to establish the forum very quickly and it might explain the reason > why other CS ORGs from the Arab region did not manage to participate. > > I was very much involved since 2009 in this > process. I participated in the consultaions that took place in 2010 and > 2012 and I also constributed with other CS members from the Arab region to > define the Arab IG roadmap published by UNESCWA and based on which the > forum will be organized. I suppose that the emerging issues since the > roadmap was drafted will be also taken into consideration to define the > agenda of the first edition. > > Please do follow @IGFArab on Twitter and ArabIGF on > Facebook for more updates about the whole process. It will be great if we > get as many Arab CS members involved. It will be also great to do some > outreach at the local level to define the IG process since the concept is > still ambiguous to the masses in the region. I am afraid a lot of work > needs to be done in this regard. > > Hanane Boujemi > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah < > ias_pk at yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Dear Quasi, > Would you please share the next meeting > schedule for AIGF activities? > I hope that if there is some remote > participation facility, some of our Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu > Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia. > We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and > support in AIGF formation activities. > Thanks and Regards > Imran Ahmed Shah > ------------------------------On Wed, Feb > 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT Qusai AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were > there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro <>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:>>> I am > just wondering whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the>> > planning. If not, I am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me > know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti < > qshatti at gmail.com> wrote:>>>> Dear Khaled:>> We wish that you were there > with us in Beirut. The open consultation were>> conducted in an open > transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were>> all participants from > all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an>> equal manner in > discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the>> open > consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all>> > stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we>> > requested the ESCWA and > > LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> > multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public>> > announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open>> > consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they>> > requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format.>>>> We > look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process.>>>> > Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled > koubaa wrote:>>>>> Hi Qusai,>>> Could you please > share with us the list of participants at that meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I > have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations>>> of > the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> > Khaled Koubaa>>>>>> Sent by an Android phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, > "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > a écrit :>>>>>> We warmly congratulate this > > development and look forward to > including>>> this in our Calendar.>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, > Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:>>>> I > would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of>>>> the > Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>>>> > Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the > first>>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF > announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the > Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A Multistakeholder > open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>>>> the Arab Internet > Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>>>> 31/1 - 1/2/2012 > in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by>>>> the League > of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social>>>> Commission > of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>>> > > Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation > was sponsored by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and > was attended by the IGF>>>> secretariat. More than 50 participants > representing stakeholders from>>>> governments, private sector, civil > society and regional organizations in>>>> the Arab World attended the open > consultation and engaged actively in>>>> discussing the importance of an > Internet Governance Forum for the Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open > consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab>>>> > Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers > (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an > Arab IGF. The>>>> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an > expert group>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 > which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance > with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in the Arab World.>>>>>>>> During > > the open consultations, a strong consent > emerged on the need>>>> and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with > the turn of events in>>>> the region and the major role of the Internet in > these events. A report>>>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was > drafted by the participants and>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the > Executive Bureau of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information > Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the > outcome, endorsed it and recommended the>>>> active participation of all > stakeholders, including governments, in the>>>> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> > The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals>>>> of > the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure>>>> > similar to the IGF's current structure with a secretariat and a>>>> > Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>>>> > Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the > First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early > October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National > Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>>>> *. > There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the>>>> > participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG>>>> > membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in > the>>>> Arab world to express their interest to participate in it.>>>>>>>> > The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> · > Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet>>>> Governance > especially in the areas of access, stability, security and>>>> > development.>>>>>>>> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best > practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, > technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> · Gather different > opinions and build consensus for unified>>>> Arab views on priorities > > and on mechanisms to respond to Arab > countries>>>> needs related to Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> · > Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it.>>>>>>>> · > Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well>>>> as > improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> > possible resources of knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> · > Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the>>>> Arab role in > formulating Internet Governance policies.>>>>>>>> · Outreach with > the Internet Governance Forum and other>>>> regional IGFs with purpose of > exchanging knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________>>>> You > received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> For all other list > information and functions, see:>>>> > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit your profile and to > find the IGC's charter, see:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -->>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________>>> You > received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> For all other list > information and functions, see:>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>> To edit your profile and to > find the IGC's charter, see:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 > 998 2851>>>>>>>> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber > on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and > functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's > charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Feb 16 05:58:33 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:58:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] List of topics being discussed at Open MAG meeting Message-ID: <93D39942-EC16-4D99-8ADD-69793CA52CF7@privaterra.org> Wanted to share with all of you the collaborative document I have created where I am tracking the themes, topics and sub-topics being proposed at the open MAG meeting today. http://piratepad.net/jgPr09lZz3 regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 mazzone at ebu.ch Thu Feb 16 06:15:16 2012 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:15:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: <4F3CCD64.90409@eff.org> Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF824A6859F@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> What is your skype address ? I will report to chengatai. Kiss Giacomo ----- Original Message ----- From: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at eff.org] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:33 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion Is there a parallel Skype chat? Webex is not working well for me. pls help. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mazzone at ebu.ch Thu Feb 16 06:20:38 2012 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:20:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: <4F3CD0E2.2020304@eff.org> Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF824A685A0@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Dear Katitza, I said to Chengatai the problem you have. He is sending you the link to the transcript page... There is no skype session active. I hope this will help. Besos. Giacomo From: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at eff.org] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:48 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Deirdre Williams Cc: Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion Hi folks, Someone is in the MAG room can Skype me in? is there a civil society Skype group? I'm not in today! On 2/16/12 1:30 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: Dear Roland, I am living testimony to the frustration you speak about - having got up at 4.30 to be ready at 5 for the meeting - I can't find the meeting. :-( Can anybody help please? Deirdre On 16 February 2012 04:54, Roland Perry > wrote: at 14:32:45 on Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Deirdre Williams > writes One of the people 'at' the MAG meeting this morning was i, rushing off to lobby - electronically - as soon as the meeting was finished. So I would incline to the idea that remote participation is fast losing its 'second class' status, and would push hard for the 'right' that remote participants should NEVER be treated as second class, although they often are now. In order to manage people's expectations, I think there should be a grading system for remote participation. For example, is there a live audio feed, a live video feed, transcriptions live or transcriptions archived. Is there an archive of the webcast. Can remote participants have questions read out, or can they speak to the meeting from their remote location. Is there a facility for chat between remote participants. I'm not suggesting that all of these options have to be available for every meeting, but when there's an expectation of being able to participate (or indeed as might be the case for today's MAG meeting, to remotely observe, which is slightly different) and it turns out the facility is very limited, it can be frustrating. -- 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 -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 16 06:25:31 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:25:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: <4F3CE7AB.2020905@gmail.com> WIPO has a similar approach to civil society participation Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore which facilitates the participation of indigenous people in particular. Perhaps this is a model that can be adopted/adapted as it is within the UN family... although WIPO is a little of a black sheep in many respects with its commitment to Development (Agenda) rather recent (unlike other UN agencies) and rather despotic interpretations of what development means (like other UN agencies)... On 2012/02/16 11:10 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Dear Mike, > > What IGC needs to work on, with support from civil society > organization and Internet organizations, is a Civil Society Fund. The > fund could be set up with a purpose of improving Civil Society > participation in MAG, IGF and other important events, and could be > large enough to cover requirements other than travel and > participation. A group of IGC leaders, together with some well > connected volunteers could begin work on this and set us such a fund. > The contribution could come from individuals and civil society > organizations. We could also reach out to , and from those Business > Corporations and Governments which are willing to contribute to the > fund unconditionally. If this can't be done, achieving a balance in > the multi-stakeholder environment would be difficult. > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:04 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice and >> there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of funding >> may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give >> precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding and >> what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of something >> (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its >> success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is this >> the principle that we want to accept? >> >> We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote participation >> as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision >> making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the >> legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple >> layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are allowed >> "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on >> outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a "second >> class" position -- since we know how much of outcome determination/decision >> making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f >> interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this the >> practice we want to accept? >> >> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Feb 16 06:43:30 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:43:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF824A685A0@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> References: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF824A685A0@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Message-ID: <4F3CEBE2.7060307@eff.org> got it! It's working now. : ) Thanks! On 2/16/12 3:20 AM, Mazzone, Giacomo wrote: > Dear Katitza, > I said to Chengatai the problem you have. > He is sending you the link to the transcript page... > There is no skype session active. > > I hope this will help. > Besos. > Giacomo > > *From*: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at eff.org] > *Sent*: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:48 AM > *To*: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; > Deirdre Williams > *Cc*: Roland Perry > *Subject*: Re: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion > > Hi folks, > > Someone is in the MAG room can Skype me in? is there a civil society > Skype group? I'm not in today! > > On 2/16/12 1:30 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> Dear Roland, >> I am living testimony to the frustration you speak about - having got >> up at 4.30 to be ready at 5 for the meeting - I can't find the >> meeting. :-( >> Can anybody help please? >> Deirdre >> >> On 16 February 2012 04:54, Roland Perry >> > > wrote: >> >> at 14:32:45 on Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Deirdre Williams >> > >> writes >> >> One of the people 'at' the MAG meeting >> this morning was i, rushing off to lobby - electronically - >> as soon as the meeting was finished. So I would incline to >> the idea that >> remote participation is fast losing its 'second class' >> status, and would >> push hard for the 'right' that remote participants should >> NEVER be treated >> as second class, although they often are now. >> >> >> In order to manage people's expectations, I think there should be >> a grading system for remote participation. >> >> For example, is there a live audio feed, a live video feed, >> transcriptions live or transcriptions archived. Is there an >> archive of the webcast. Can remote participants have questions >> read out, or can they speak to the meeting from their remote >> location. Is there a facility for chat between remote participants. >> >> I'm not suggesting that all of these options have to be available >> for every meeting, but when there's an expectation of being able >> to participate (or indeed as might be the case for today's MAG >> meeting, to remotely observe, which is slightly different) and it >> turns out the facility is very limited, it can be frustrating. >> -- >> 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 > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the system > manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been > swept by the mailgateway > ************************************************** * > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mazzone at ebu.ch Thu Feb 16 07:07:37 2012 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:07:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC7F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1329249346.70655.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F3B9D0E.7020308@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC7F9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF824A685AF@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Are you finally out from the hospital ? I hope so and I wish you all the best... Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: jeudi, 16. février 2012 10:57 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Qusai AlShatti; Hanane Boujemi Cc: Khaled KOUBAA; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Subject: AW: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Hi just a comment from an "Outsider". A regional IGF is - like the global or national IGFs - an evolving "process". It is learning by doing. Deficiencies and weaknesses in the 1st meeting can be corrected in the second one. We have now the 5th meeting in Europe and it moved from a small kick start meeting, supported by an intergovernmental organisation (COE) in 2008 into a remakable event as you will see it in June 2012 in Stockholm. Will say, be patient, learn from your mistakes, stick to the principles of openess, inclusion, transparency, bottom up and multistakholderism and stumble forward! The most important thing is to get started! And this is what you do. Congratulations. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Qusai AlShatti [mailto:qshatti at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mi 15.02.2012 16:20 An: Hanane Boujemi Cc: Khaled KOUBAA; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Betreff: Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Dear Khaled and Hanan Thank you Hanan for your kind comments and thank you khaled for raising your concerns. The fact that someone was not there in the meeting does not mean that the meeting was not set in the right way or did not comply with multistakeholder participation. Actually as I have mentioned in a previous input and echoed by some of my colleagues, the open consulation was inclusive, open and publicly anounced for participation. However what khaled have in mind is what we are planning for the Arab IGF. We do want the Arab youth who drived change in the Arab world and still doing it to be the main dirve of the AIGF. I believe AIGFshould be a dialouge space for them. It should allow us to exchange views with the youth as well as listen to them. We need also to bare in mind that the purpose of the open consultation that took place in Beirut was only to discuss the launch of the AIGF and I think all of us agree that it is important to us. The planning of AIGF and its program are our upcoming activities. It will start with a public announcement for the AIGF MAG membership and we look forward to all stakeholders to express their interest and participate in the AIGF MAG. Let us look forward to make the upcoming AIGF a successful one by making it inclusive, transparent and open to all with emphasis on Arab youth and activists. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Hanane Boujemi wrote: Kahled I get your point and I can confirm that civil society fingerprints are quite significant in setting the scene of the AIGF even though there were only few members present. Now that the process took off effectively with Kuwait taking the lead in organizing the first AIGF (and thanks to Qusai for his constant support) and ESCWA as well who really worked hard to get this process out of the door. We have to join forces to make it a successful true open forum to all parties concerned. There will be open consultations to decide on the themes and workshops and that's where civil society from the region must be ready to raise the main issues at stake vis-a-vis IG. There is no chance for the AIGF to be another episode in the oppression soap opera , power is now changing as you said and it's in the hand of the common man thanks to the Internet. Hanane On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote: Hanane, The AICTO is a Governmental-Organization and does not represent the civil society. You know more than me that they are really very few of real civil society "free" and "independent" CSO in the Arab World. The private sector is as well governed in a big part by governments. So what we will have is a Arab IGF where what the governments will propose will be congratulated and accepted by the participants. Let's be honest with ourselves, are we just continuing to do the same "cinema" than before ? I think that a region like the Arab region where there is now huge geopolitical regional change, revolutions in some countries, power changing in some others, and all this with a big role being played by Internet. Do you think an Arab IGF can be made like this ? We need a real participatory process. Where is the revolution leaders ? where is the Internet and Human rights activists ? are they involved ? will the be invited ? I don't think so. The same old pro-dictators continue to play the same game in our countries. Khaled Le 14/02/2012 21:18, Hanane Boujemi a écrit : Kahlid&Tijani, There was a lady from Tunisia Ms. Roukia who represented Arab ICT ORG. The whole AIGF process was delayed for one year due to the Arab spring and ESCWA had to organize the last consultation meeting to establish the forum very quickly and it might explain the reason why other CS ORGs from the Arab region did not manage to participate. I was very much involved since 2009 in this process. I participated in the consultaions that took place in 2010 and 2012 and I also constributed with other CS members from the Arab region to define the Arab IG roadmap published by UNESCWA and based on which the forum will be organized. I suppose that the emerging issues since the roadmap was drafted will be also taken into consideration to define the agenda of the first edition. Please do follow @IGFArab on Twitter and ArabIGF on Facebook for more updates about the whole process. It will be great if we get as many Arab CS members involved. It will be also great to do some outreach at the local level to define the IG process since the concept is still ambiguous to the masses in the region. I am afraid a lot of work needs to be done in this regard. Hanane Boujemi On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: Dear Quasi, Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF activities? I hope that if there is some remote participation facility, some of our Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia. We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in AIGF formation activities. Thanks and Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT Qusai AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:>>> I am just wondering whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the>> planning. If not, I am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>> Dear Khaled:>> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were>> conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were>> all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an>> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the>> open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all>> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we>> requested the ESCWA and LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public>> announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open>> consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they>> requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format.>>>> We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process.>>>> Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote:>>>>> Hi Qusai,>>> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations>>> of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> Khaled Koubaa>>>>>> Sent by an Android phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :>>>>>> We warmly congratulate this development and look forward to including>>> this in our Calendar.>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:>>>> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of>>>> the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first>>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>>>> the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>>>> 31/1 - 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by>>>> the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social>>>> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>>> Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF>>>> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from>>>> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in>>>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in>>>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The>>>> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in the Arab World.>>>>>>>> During the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need>>>> and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in>>>> the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report>>>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the>>>> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the>>>> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals>>>> of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure>>>> similar to the IGF's current structure with a secretariat and a>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>>>> Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>>>> *. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the>>>> participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG>>>> membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the>>>> Arab world to express their interest to participate in it.>>>>>>>> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> · Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet>>>> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and>>>> development.>>>>>>>> · Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> · Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified>>>> Arab views on priorities and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>>>> needs related to Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> · Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it.>>>>>>>> · Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well>>>> as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> possible resources of knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> · Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the>>>> Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies.>>>>>>>> · Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other>>>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Thu Feb 16 07:12:59 2012 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:12:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: AW: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Message-ID: <1329394379.90647.YahooMailClassic@web171510.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi all, Congratulations to you for that great ARAB IGF initiative...I like the Mr. K. Wolfgang comments and  hope these should help any other IGF initiatives in any region, Keep it up,regards, Gatete   --- En date de : Jeu 16.2.12, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" a écrit : De: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Objet: AW: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF À: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Qusai AlShatti" , "Hanane Boujemi" Cc: "Khaled KOUBAA" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Imran Ahmed Shah" , salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Date: Jeudi 16 février 2012, 10h57 Hi just a comment from an "Outsider". A regional IGF is - like the global or national IGFs - an evolving "process". It is learning by doing. Deficiencies and weaknesses in the 1st meeting can be corrected in the second one. We have now the 5th meeting in Europe and it moved from a small kick start meeting, supported by an intergovernmental organisation (COE) in 2008 into a remakable event as you will see it in June 2012 in Stockholm. Will say, be patient, learn from your mistakes, stick to the principles of openess, inclusion, transparency, bottom up and multistakholderism and stumble forward! The most important thing is to get started! And this is what you do. Congratulations. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Qusai AlShatti [mailto:qshatti at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mi 15.02.2012 16:20 An: Hanane Boujemi Cc: Khaled KOUBAA; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Betreff: Re: [governance] Announcing the First Arab IGF Dear Khaled and Hanan Thank you Hanan for your kind comments and thank you khaled for raising your concerns. The fact that someone was not there in the meeting does not mean that the meeting was not set in the right way or did not comply with multistakeholder participation. Actually as I have mentioned in a previous input and echoed by some of my colleagues, the open consulation was inclusive, open and publicly anounced for participation. However what khaled have in mind is what we are planning for the Arab IGF. We do want the Arab youth who drived change in the Arab world and still doing it to be the main dirve of the AIGF. I believe AIGFshould be a dialouge space for them. It should allow us to exchange views with the youth as well as listen to them. We need also to bare in mind that the purpose of the open consultation that took place in Beirut was only to discuss the launch of the AIGF and I think all of us agree that it is important to us. The planning of AIGF and its program are our upcoming activities. It will start with a public announcement for the AIGF MAG membership and we look forward to all stakeholders to express their interest and participate in the AIGF MAG. Let us look forward to make the upcoming AIGF a successful one by making it inclusive, transparent and open to all with emphasis on Arab youth and activists. Regards, Qusai AlShatti On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Hanane Boujemi wrote:     Kahled         I get your point and I can confirm that civil society fingerprints are quite significant in setting the scene of the AIGF even though there were only few members present.     Now that the process took off effectively with Kuwait taking the lead in organizing the first AIGF (and thanks to Qusai for his constant support) and ESCWA as well who really worked hard to get this process out of the door.  We have to join forces to make it a successful true open forum to all parties concerned. There will be open consultations to decide on the themes and workshops and that's where civil society from the region must be ready to raise the main issues at stake vis-a-vis IG.     There is no chance for the AIGF to be another episode in the oppression soap opera , power is now changing as you said and it's in the hand of the common man thanks to the Internet.         Hanane     On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Khaled KOUBAA wrote:             Hanane,         The AICTO is a Governmental-Organization and does not represent the civil society.         You know more than me that they are really very few of real civil society "free" and "independent" CSO in the Arab World.         The private sector is as well governed in a big part by governments. So what we will have is a Arab IGF where what the governments will propose will be congratulated and accepted by the participants.         Let's be honest with ourselves, are we just continuing to do the same "cinema" than before ?         I think that a region like the Arab region where there is now huge geopolitical regional change, revolutions in some countries, power changing in some others, and all this with a big role being played by Internet.         Do you think an Arab IGF can be made like this ? We need a real participatory process.         Where is the revolution leaders ? where is the Internet and Human rights activists ? are they involved ? will the be invited ? I don't think so.         The same old pro-dictators continue to play the same game in our countries.                 Khaled                 Le 14/02/2012 21:18, Hanane Boujemi a écrit :             Kahlid&Tijani,                         There was a lady from Tunisia Ms. Roukia who represented Arab ICT ORG. The whole AIGF process was delayed for one year due to the Arab spring and ESCWA had to organize the last consultation meeting to establish the forum very quickly and it might explain the reason why other CS ORGs from the Arab region did not manage to participate.                         I was very much involved since 2009 in this process. I participated in the consultaions that took place in 2010 and 2012 and I also constributed with other CS members from the Arab region to define the Arab IG roadmap published by UNESCWA and based on which the forum will be organized. I suppose that the emerging issues since the roadmap was drafted will be also taken into consideration to define the agenda of the first edition.                         Please do follow @IGFArab on Twitter and ArabIGF on Facebook for more updates about the whole process. It will be great if we get as many Arab CS members involved. It will be also great to do some outreach at the local level to define the IG process since the concept is still ambiguous to the masses in the region. I am afraid a lot of work needs to be done in this regard.                         Hanane Boujemi             On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:                             Dear Quasi,                 Would you please share the next meeting schedule for AIGF activities?                 I hope that if there is some remote participation facility, some of our Group Members may join from Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah and Saudi Arabia.                 We can also ask UN-GAID to participate and support in AIGF formation activities.                 Thanks and Regards                 Imran Ahmed Shah                 ------------------------------On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 12:33 AM PKT Qusai AlShatti wrote:>Dear Salenieta:>Yes they were there.>>Qusai>>On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:>>> I am just wondering whether the UAE ICT regulators were also there at the>> planning. If not, I am happy to facilitate the introduction? Let me know.>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>> Dear Khaled:>> We wish that you were there with us in Beirut. The open consultation were>> conducted in an open transparent inclusive multistakeholder process were>> all participants from all multistakeholder groups actively engaged in an>> equal manner in discussing the Arab IGF and in drafting the outcomes of the>> open consultations. I don't have the list of final participants but all>> stakehlders groups from the Arab World were represented. Actually we>> requested the ESCWA and                                  LAS before the meeting to ensure a>> multistakeholders representation in the open consultations. A public>> announcement was made for this purpose. Furthemore when the open>> consultation was requested by the Arab ministers of communication, they>> requested that it should be conducted in a multistakeholder format.>>>> We look forward for your participation in the Arab IGF and its process.>>>> Regards,>>>> Qusai AlShatti>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:57 PM, khaled koubaa wrote:>>>>> Hi Qusai,>>> Could you please share with us the list of participants at that meeting>>> in Lebanon.>>> I have real concern with contnuous oversight of some gov-organizations>>> of the Arab IGF without real multistakeholders involvment.>>> Thank you,>>>>>> Khaled Koubaa>>>>>> Sent by an Android phone>>> Le 14 févr. 2012 11:41, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> a écrit :>>>>>> We warmly congratulate this                                  development and look forward to including>>> this in our Calendar.>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Qusai AlShatti wrote:>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:>>>> I would like to take the opportunity to announce the establshment of>>>> the Arab IGF (AIGF). The first meeting of AIGF will be organized by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society which will be held in Kuwait on the first>>>> week of October 2012. I am attaching the AIGF announcement.>>>>>>>>>>>> *Announcement of*>>>>>>>> *The endorsement of the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) process*>>>>>>>> A Multistakeholder open consultation meeting to discuss the launch of>>>> the Arab Internet Governance Forum (AIGF) was held during the period of>>>> 31/1 - 1/2/2012 in Beirut, Lebanon. The open consultation was organized by>>>> the League of Arab States (LAS), the United Nation Economic and Social>>>> Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA) and the Council of Ministers of the>>>>                                  Republic of Lebanon. The open consultation was sponsored by Kuwait>>>> Information Technology Society and RIPE NCC and was attended by the IGF>>>> secretariat. More than 50 participants representing stakeholders from>>>> governments, private sector, civil society and regional organizations in>>>> the Arab World attended the open consultation and engaged actively in>>>> discussing the importance of an Internet Governance Forum for the Arab>>>> World.>>>>>>>> The open consultation was carried based on the request of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> to seek feedback from various stakeholders on the need for an Arab IGF. The>>>> ministers requested it after receiving the outcome of an expert group>>>> meeting that was organized by the ESCWA in October 2010 which emphasized on>>>> the need to have a dialogue on Internet Governance with relevance to>>>> stakeholders in the Arab World.>>>>>>>> During                                  the open consultations, a strong consent emerged on the need>>>> and the importance for the Arab IGF especially with the turn of events in>>>> the region and the major role of the Internet in these events. A report>>>> recommending the establishment of AIGF was drafted by the participants and>>>> forwarded by the LAS Secretariat to the Executive Bureau of the Arab>>>> Telecommunication and Information Technology Council of Ministers (ATICM)>>>> on 2/2/2012, who welcomed the outcome, endorsed it and recommended the>>>> active participation of all stakeholders, including governments, in the>>>> Arab IGF process.>>>>>>>> The participants in the open consultations focused also on the goals>>>> of the AIGF and its structure. There was consent to adopt a structure>>>> similar to the IGF's current structure with a secretariat and a>>>> Multistakeholder Advisory Committee (MAG). *A proposal was made by>>>> Kuwait Information Technology Society to host the                  First Arab IGF in Kuwait>>>> in early October 2012 and a proposal was made by the Republic of Egypt>>>> National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority to be the AIGF secretariat>>>> *. There was an agreement and consent on both proposals by the>>>> participants. It was agreed that a public announcement for the MAG>>>> membership will be made to give the opportunity for all stakeholders in the>>>> Arab world to express their interest to participate in it.>>>>>>>> The open consultation recommended that the AIGF should:>>>>>>>> ·         Focus on discussing public policies related to Internet>>>> Governance especially in the areas of access, stability, security and>>>> development.>>>>>>>> ·         Facilitate the exchange of information, best practices,>>>> knowledge and lessons learned by involving experts, technical community and>>>> Academics.>>>>>>>> ·         Gather different opinions and build consensus for unified>>>> Arab views on priorities                                  and on mechanisms to respond to Arab countries>>>> needs related to Internet governance issues.>>>>>>>> ·         Discuss emerging issues and present recommendations on it.>>>>>>>> ·         Build and develop capacity in Internet Governance as well>>>> as improve the participation of all stakeholders to benefit from all>>>> possible resources of knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> ·         Communicate globally the Arab positions and enhance the>>>> Arab role in formulating Internet Governance policies.>>>>>>>> ·         Outreach with the Internet Governance Forum and other>>>> regional IGFs with purpose of exchanging knowledge and expertise.>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>>>>                                    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>> To be removed from the list, visit:>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT>>                                  Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>> Cell: +679 998 2851>>>>>>>>                                                 ____________________________________________________________                 You received this message as a subscriber on the list:                     governance at lists.igcaucus.org                 To be removed from the list, visit:                     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing                                 For all other list information and functions, see:                     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance                 To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:                     http://www.igcaucus.org/                                 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t                                 -----La pièce jointe associée suit----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 16 07:49:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:49:49 +1300 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination Message-ID: Dear Imran, Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Decision in response to complaint by Imran Ahmed Shah.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56738 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 08:51:10 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:51:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: We tried to make a strong representation about this issue this morning. Several people were going to work on it through lunch. More news later perhaps. Deirdre On 16 February 2012 06:03, Roland Perry wrote: > at 05:30:21 on Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> writes > > I am living testimony to the frustration you speak about - having got up >> at 4.30 to be ready at 5 for the meeting - I can't find the meeting. >> > > Yesterday I noticed there was a "letterbox" transcript available in the > same place as for the Open Consultations http://nubes.lscube.org/loginbut I had other commitments yesterday and didn't follow the proceedings. > Today I can't see any way to remotely observe. > -- > 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 10:18:03 2012 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:18:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Massive, continuing, and apparently legal invasion of personal privacy Message-ID: If this group wants a cause célèbre in the area of invasion of personal privacy, you might want to consider this report: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/google-and-mobile-apps-take-data-books-without-permission/?hpw -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 10:27:40 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:27:40 -0400 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Izumi AIZU Date: 16 February 2012 10:40 Subject: Re: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation To: Governance List Hi, Thanks Imran and Marilia, and also some comments on Skype channel, and I also spoke with Seiichi and the guys from Turin. I tried to incorporate all suggestions, as follows: more comments welcome. izumi --- IGC Statement on Remote Participation We like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of organizing IGF and we appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open consultation and MAG meetings which were opened to observers. We like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from Politecnico di Torino, or The Polytechnic University of Turin which was originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola in the first place. Building on that, we like to point out and suggest the followings to further improve our remote participation: There were some problems with video feeds and there was not a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. This idea should encompass those physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. We regret that remote observers were effectively excluded from the MAG meeting, because they had no access to live transcript. And we must add that even Mag members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators We urge MAG and IGF secretariat and ourselves, to consider the followings for the future IGF organizing work and IGF itself and work together: Provide as much interactivity as possible. Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderator (who do not have other jobs at the same time and is responsible to interact between the meeting physical participants+ speaker and the Remote Participants). Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as real-time transcription and video streaming / coverage of the meeting. Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive presentations access through RP. Due to limitation of sufficient funds availability for direct participation, it is crucially required for a common Remote participants as well as for a MAG members. ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To 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 iza at anr.org Thu Feb 16 10:28:10 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:28:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry, I made a mistake - sending this to the correct list now. Gmail address..... izumi 2012/2/16 Izumi AIZU : > Hi, > Thanks Imran and Marilia, and also some comments on Skype channel, and > I also spoke with Seiichi and the guys from Turin. > > I tried to incorporate all suggestions, as follows: > more comments welcome. > > izumi > > --- > IGC Statement on Remote Participation > > We like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of > organizing IGF and we appreciate the effort to provide remote > participation for the Open consultation and MAG meetings which were > opened to observers. > > We like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from > Politecnico di Torino, or The Polytechnic University of Turin which > was originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola in the first > place. > > Building on that, we like to point out and suggest the followings to > further improve our remote participation: > > There were some problems with video feeds and there was not a clear > procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. This > idea should encompass those physically present in Geneva and those > observing the meeting remotely. > > We regret that remote observers were effectively excluded from the MAG > meeting, because they had no access to live transcript. And we must > add that even Mag members trying to participate online had difficulty > in contacting moderators > > We urge MAG and IGF secretariat and ourselves, to consider the > followings for the future IGF organizing work and IGF itself and work > together: > > Provide as much interactivity as possible. > Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants > > Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation > > Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderator > (who do not have other jobs at the same time and is responsible to > interact between the meeting physical participants+ speaker and the > Remote Participants). > > Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as > real-time transcription and video streaming / coverage of the meeting. > > Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP. > > Due to limitation of sufficient funds availability for direct > participation, it is crucially required for a common Remote > participants as well as for a MAG members. > > ----- --                         >> 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 iza at anr.org Thu Feb 16 10:36:52 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:36:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here's another revision. izumi IGC Statement on Remote Participation Feb 15, 2012 We like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of organizing IGF and we appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open consultation and MAG meetings opened to observers both in the room and also in remote places. We like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from Politecnico di Torino, or The Polytechnic University of Turin which was originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola in the first place. Building on that, we like to point out and suggest the followings to further improve our remote participation, especially mindful of the limitation of sufficient funding availability for direct participation we are facing now. There were some problems with video feeds. There was not a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. We regret that some remote observers were effectively excluded from the MAG meeting, because they had no access to live transcript. And we must add that even Mag members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators and making proper settings. We urge MAG and IGF secretariat and also ourselves, to consider the followings for the future IGF organizing work and IGF itself and work together: - Provide as much interactivity as possible. - Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants - Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation - Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderator (who do not have other jobs at the same time and is responsible to interact between the meeting physical participants+ speaker and the Remote Participants). - Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as real-time transcription and video streaming / coverage of the meeting. - Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive presentations access through Remote 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 iza at anr.org Thu Feb 16 11:09:44 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:09:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is close to what I just said. Note I added Executive Coordinator and MAG renewal thing at the bottom. izumi ---- IGC Statement on Remote Participation Feb 15, 2012 We like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of organizing IGF and we appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open consultation and MAG meetings opened to observers both in the room and also in remote places. We like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from Politecnico di Torino, or The Polytechnic University of Turin which was originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola in the first place. Building on that, we like to point out and suggest the followings to further improve our remote participation, especially mindful of the limitation of sufficient funding availability for direct participation we are facing now. There were some problems with video feeds. There was not a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. We regret that some remote observers were effectively excluded from the MAG meeting, because they had no access to live transcript. And we must add that even Mag members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators and making proper settings. We urge MAG and IGF secretariat and also ourselves, to consider the followings for the future IGF organizing work and IGF itself and work together: - Provide as much interactivity as possible. - Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants - Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation - Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderator (who do not have other jobs at the same time and is responsible to interact between the meeting physical participants+ speaker and the Remote Participants). - Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as real-time transcription and video streaming / coverage of the meeting. - Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive presentations access through Remote Participation. --- Like European Commission and European Union, IGC is also very concenred on the issue of Executive Secretariat appointment – delaying this makes the good organizational works of IGFvery difficult. Could you, Chiar and DESA tell us when you appoint the new MAG members? Given a lot of work to come, we like to work together without much delay. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 16 11:23:57 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:23:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] from UN DESA Message-ID: UN DESA responded: - we have to start the appointment of new MAG as soon as possible for appointment of new Eexc Coordinator, it's the progative of SG, he ise fully aware, his office is working on this, hope this process be finished very shortly, but i cannot speculate when Sg will be done IGF secretariat is funded from UN Trust Fund, completely based on voluntary contributions - regreatbly due to various factors, financial, current funding situation of this project is limited us to proceed the completion of the Exec Coordinator. We share these concerns, situation with donor communities, appreciate them, extending financial direct contribution into trust fund, and once adaquate funding is avaialble, the process of EC will be complted. I will keep you posted -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 16 11:33:48 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:33:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: from UN DESA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: UN DESA - we maintain transparency, neutrality and availability - for all memebers of IGC, even childern who can type Internet can apply - but not mean to qualify then so called the first pre-selection, then move next stage - response to the question from EU, 100 applicants? Chair position? Every host country? UN DESA - position of Nitin Desai - this is SG Progative, for special advisor but in the absence, we gave the host country the role of Chair - element of capacity building idea to allow host country to be the Chair on their respective mag meetings, until other proposal comes from the mAG DESA - this is just ad hoc, tentative solution, replying to George's question. Chair - final remarks: thanking all, learning experiences, new approaches for solving many issues regarding Internet Governance we will try to have all possible approaches for good organizing of IGF we are together with your assistance Chengetai - next meeting in May We have two issues - before or after WSIS Week. Consensus is going to be during the WSIS week. Asking any strong objection? No. So we will have Tuesday-Thursday, ?? consultation is Friday. May 15, 16 and 17. End at 17:30 --- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 16 12:02:56 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:02:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Who are the people USTR clears to see secret text for TPPA IPR negotiation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F3D36C0.3090909@gmail.com> Like ACTA, the TPPA is "secret"... so much for the enlightened individual having access to information to make an informed decision... But perhaps this is what you get from free traders who are permissive about monopoly IPR rights... if you lose theoretical fidelity, you can go anywhere... Riaz -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Ip-health] Who are the people USTR clears to see secret text for TPPA IPR negotiation? Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:39:56 -0500 http://www.keionline.org/node/1362 Who are the people USTR clears to see secret text for TPPA IPR negotiation? In a meeting with USTR on February 15, 2012, KEI, MSF, Oxfam and Public Citizen pressed USTR to release the negotiating text for the intellectual property rights chapter in the TPPA trade agreement negotiation. USTR said the negotiation had "unprecedented" transparency, but maintained the text needed to be secret from the general public. USTR also claimed than no one on its many advisory boards, who are cleared to see the negotiating text, were lobbyists. The official advisory system for trade negotiations is extensive, including 16 Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs), and 8 other advisory committee. I have provided links to the 24 advisory committee, and also provided the names of persons who serve on ITAC 15 (Intellectual Property Rights), ITAC 3 (Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Health Science Products and Services), ITAC 8 (Information and Communications Technologies, Services, and Electronic Commerce) , and ITAC 10 (Services and Finance Industries). Industry Trade Advisory Committees Committee of Chairs of the Industry Trade Advisory Committees [2] Aerospace Equipment (ITAC 1) [3] Automotive Equipment and Capital Goods (ITAC 2) [4] Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Health/Science Products and Services (ITAC 3) [5] Consumer Goods (ITAC 4) [6] Distribution Services (ITAC 5) [7] Energy and Energy Services (ITAC 6) [8] Forest Products (ITAC 7) [9] Information and Communications Technologies, Services, and Electronic Commerce (ITAC 8) [10] Non-Ferrous Metals and Building Materials (ITAC 9) [11] Services and Finance Industries (ITAC 10) [12] Small and Minority Business (ITAC 11) [13] Steel (ITAC 12) [14] Textiles and Clothing (ITAC 13) [15] Customs Matters and Trade Facilitation (ITAC 14) [16] Intellectual Property Rights (ITAC 15) [17] Standards and Technical Trade Barriers (ITAC 16) [18] Other Advisory Committees Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN) [19] Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC) [20] Agricultural Technical Advisory Committee for Trade (ATAC) [21] Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITAC) [22] Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC) [23] Labor Advisory Committee (LAC) [24] Trade Advisory Committee on Africa (TACA) [25] Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC) [26] After reviewing the names below (many of whom are former employees of USTR and other government trade offices), you can evaluate the USTR claim that none of them are "lobbyists," and if this assertion ranks right up there with New Gingrich's claim that his work for Freddie Mac was as a historian. You can also ask, what is the point of keeping the text secret from the American Public? Note also that a significant number of firms represented on the advisory boards are foreign owned firms, such as the members of PhRMA, BIO and the RIAA, the Coalition for Intellectual Property rights, the Entertainment Software Association, or the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Industry Trade Advisory Committee On Intellectual Property Rights ITAC 15, Total Members = 15 Chairman Mr. Richard H. Kjeldgaard Deputy Vice President, International Intellectual Property Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Primary Vice-Chairman Mr. Timothy P. Trainer President Global Intellectual Property Strategy Center, P.C. Zippo Manufacturing Company Secondary Vice-Chairman Stevan D. Mitchell, Esq. Vice President, Intellectual Property Policy Entertainment Software Association Mark Chandler, Esq. Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary Cisco Systems, Inc. Sarah B. Deutsch, Esq Vice President and Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Mr. Scott M. Frank President and Chief Executive Officer AT&T Intellectual Property, Inc. Mr. John Frisbie President U.S.-China Business Council Tanuja Garde, Esq. Executive Counsel for Intellectual Property General Counsel for Engineering GE Aviation A. Bob Ghosh, Esq. Director and Corporate Counsel Intellectual Property Law AVAYA J. Anthony Imler, Ph.D. Consultant Representing Johnson& Johnson Perla M. Kuhn, Esq. Partner Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP Representing Accessory Net Group, LLC Jeffrey P. Kushan, Esq. Sidley Austin Representing Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) Brian S. Roman, Esq. Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer Mylan Inc. Mr. Thomas J. Thomson Executive Director Coalition for Intellectual Property Rights Neil I. Turkewitz, Esq. Executive Vice President, International Recording Industry Association of America (RIIA) Industry Trade Advisory Committee On Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Health Science Products and Services ITAC 3, Total Members = 27 Mr. Luis H. Arguello, Jr. Vice President DemeTech Corporation Robert E. Branand, Esq. Consultant Robert Branand International Representing SOCMA (Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates) Shawn M. Brown, Esq. Vice President, State Affairs Generic Pharmaceutical Association Mr. P. Claude Burcky Divisional Vice President, Global Government Affairs and Policy Abbott Laboratories, Inc. Mr. V. M. (Jim) DeLisi President Fanwood Chemical, Inc. Mr. Donald E. Ellison President Government Relations, LLC Representing Innegrity LLC Mr. Zoran I. Franicevich Manager, Global Trade Programs The Clorox Company Geoffrey Gamble, Esq. Chief International Counsel and Director, International Government Affairs E.I. DuPont de Nemours& Company Mr. Edward L. Gibbs President North Coast Medical Equipment, Inc. Mr. Vijay Goradia Chairman Vinmar International, Ltd. Trevor J. Gunn, Ph.D. Senior Director, International Relations Medtronic, Inc. Jonathan Herzog, Esq. Counsel, Trade-International St. Jude Medical, Inc. Mr. Ralph F. Ives Executive Vice President, Global Strategy and Analysis AdvaMed: Advanced Medical Technology Association Mr. Maurice J. Kerins President Airmed Biotech, Inc. Mr. Craig S. Kramer Vice President, International Government Affairs Johnson& Johnson Mr. Adrian Krygsman Director, Product Registration Troy Corporation Mr. A. E. (Ted) May, III Vice President and General Manager Andersen Products, Inc. Matthew T. McGrath, Esq. Partner Barnes, Richardson and Colburn Representing Intermune, Inc. Douglas T. Nelson, Esq. Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary CropLife America Tracey J. Norberg, Esq. Senior Vice President and Corporate Counsel Rubber Manufacturers Association Ms. Lisa A. Phillip President Hybas International, LLC George L. Rolofson, Ph.D. Consultant in Agricultural Science and Environmental, Regulatory, and Trade Policy Rolofson Consulting Representing Gowan Company Mr. Richard I. Sedlak Senior Vice President, Technical and Industrial Affairs The American Cleaning Institute Mr. Albert C. (Cal) Sutphin President Braden Sutphin Ink Company Jay T. Taylor, Esq. Vice President, International Affairs Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Harry L. Vroomen, Ph.D. Vice President, Economic Services The Fertilizer Institute Mr. Thomas G. Zieser President and Chief Executive Officer JACE Systems Industry Trade Advisory Committee On Information and Communications Technologies, Services, and Electronic Commerce ITAC 8 Total Members = 17 Chairman Jacquelynn Ruff, Esq. Vice President, International Public Policy and Regulatory Affairs Verizon Communications Inc. Primary Vice-Chairman Mr. Greg S. Slater Director, Global Trade and Competition Policy Intel Corporation Secondary Vice-Chairman Mr. John F. Neuffer Vice President, Global Policy Information Technology Industry Council Mr. Arun K. Bhumitra Chief Executive Officer Arjay Telecommunications Mr. Edward A. Bond Manager, Government Programs IBM Daniel W. Caprio, Jr. Managing Director McKenna Long& Aldridge LLP Representing European-American Business Council Mr. C. Gregory Farmer Vice President, Government Affairs Qualcomm, Inc. Mr. Jeffrey M. Ferry President Palomar Associates Representing Vello Systems Mark E. Foster, Esq. Law Offices of Mark E. Foster Representing NeoVista, Inc. Mr. Jake E. Jennings Executive Director, International External and Regulatory Affairs AT&T Mr. Todd R. Loewenstein Chief Executive Officer ArcoStream LLC Mr. Joseph P. Lui International Director of Agent Operations Information Builders, Inc. Ms. Wendy E. Owens President and Chief Executive Officer AbleMedia LLC Mr. Kenneth Rogers Executive Director Automation Alley Ms. Jennifer H. Sanford Senior Manager, International Trade and Energy Policy Cisco Systems, Inc. Mr. Michael J. Smith Chief Executive Officer and Principal MSPA: Mike Smith Public Affairs Representing Northern Virginia Technology Council Mr. Brian C. Toohey President Semiconductor Industry Association Industry Trade Advisory Committee On Services and Finance Industries ITAC 10, Total Members = 27 Chairman Ms. Elizabeth R. Benson President Energy Associates Mr. Anthony S. Bartolomeo President and Chief Executive Officer Pennoni Associates Inc. Mr. Fredric S. Berger, P.E. Chairman The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Ms. Jennifer B. Boger Trade Manager, Global Government Affairs Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Mr. Stuart J. Brahs President Stuart J. Brahs Consulting Representing American Council of Life Insurers Timothy C. Brightbill, Esq. Partner, Wiley Rein LLP Representing American Bar Association Stephen J. Canner, Ph.D. Senior Advisor United States Council for International Business Peter D. Ehrenhaft, Esq. Senior Counsel Peter D. Ehrenhaft Consulting Representing Harkins Cunningham, LLP Mr. Alan H. Fleischmann Principal Albright Stonebridge Group Mr. Gregory M. Frazier Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. Mr. Andrew F. Gelfuso Executive Director Office for Trade Promotion Trade Center Management Associates Mr. William H. Hanson Vice President Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company Mr. Charles P. Heeter Jr. Managing Principal, Global Public Policy Deloitte LLP Ms. Janice B. Howroyd Chairman and Chief Executive Officer The Act·1 Group Mr. William A. Jordan Senior Director, Government Affairs and Communications The McGraw-Hill Companies Mr. Leonard N. Karp President and Chief Executive Officer Philadelphia International Medicine Coletta I. Kemper, ARM Vice President, Industry Affairs Council of Insurance Agents& Brokers Scott A. Kenney, Esq. Senior Counsel Towers Watson& Company Mr. Gary W. Kushnier Vice President, International Policy American National Standards Institute Mr. Patrick J. Natale, P.E. Executive Director American Society of Civil Engineers Jean M. Prewitt, Esq. President and Chief Executive Officer Independent Film& Television Alliance Charles D. Schmerler, Esq. Partner Fulbright& Jaworski LLP Mr. Ivan J. Sotomayor Managing Partner Sotomayor& Associates, LLP Joseph L. Ternullo, Esq. Director, International Corporate Relations and Associate Director, Center for Connected Health Partners HealthCare System, Inc. Mark V. Vlasic, Esq. Ward& Ward PLLC Representing Savi Technology Mr. David B. Wheeler President Embark LLC Christian (Chris) E. Wolfe, Esq. Partner, Business Planning and Taxation Haynes and Boone, L.L.P. WASHINGTON 1621 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20009 /TEL: +1.202.332.2670 · FAX +1.202.332.2673 GENEVE 1 Route des Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Genève 2, Switzerland TEL: +41.22.791.6727 Source URL: http://keionline.org/node/1362 Links: [1] http://keionline.org/user/4 [2] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/chairs.asp [3] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac01.asp [4] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac02.asp [5] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac03.asp [6] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac04.asp [7] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac05.asp [8] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac06.asp [9] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac07.asp [10] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac08.asp [11] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac09.asp [12] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac10.asp [13] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac11.asp [14] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac12.asp [15] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac13.asp [16] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac14.asp [17] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac15.asp [18] http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac/committees/itac16.asp [19] http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/intergovernmental-affairs/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-trade-policy-and-negotiati [20] http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/advisory-committees/agricultural-policy-advisory-committee-apac [21] http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/intergovernmental-affairs/advisory-committees/agricultural-technical-advisory-committee-tra [22] http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/advisory-committees/industry-trade-advisory-committees-itac [23] http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/intergovernmental-affairs/advisory-committees/intergovernmental-policy-advisory-committee-i [24] http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/intergovernmental-affairs/advisory-committees/labor-advisory-committee-lac [25] http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/intergovernmental-affairs/advisory-committees/trade-advisory-committee-africa-taca [26] http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/intergovernmental-affairs/advisory-committees/trade-and-environment-policy-advisory-committ -- James Love. Knowledge Ecology International http://www.keionline.org, +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile: +1.202.361.3040, Geneva Mobile: +41.76.413.6584, efax: +1.888.245.3140. Sometimes I am using my MaxRoam number: +447937390810 twitter.com/jamie_love -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 12:16:05 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:16:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: References: <61D01F6782D3447B931D05B97181D665@UserVAIO> Message-ID: Lilian has made a proposal that may be helpful. From local activities with national IGFs, it is possible to mobilize the participation of civil society in the IGF. It is hoped that by going to this option and with some caution, UNDP as well as other regional and regional organizations are involved in the process of raising funds locally. This to allow civil society to be present in the sub-regional , regional and international meetings. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/16 Lillian Nalwoga > Dear all, > > I do agree that funding is crucial for civil society participation in the > IGF and MAG. > Further to Sivasubramanian's suggestion, I would like to also encourage > MAG reps from the different regions, with support from the IGC community to > individually take on the responsibility of convincing governments and other > institutions in their constituencies to donate to this fund. So in addition > to their stipulated responsibilities, this should be added. Instead of > waiting for funds to come to them they should also do the fundraising > themselves. > > my 2 cents... > > Lillian > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > >> Dear Mike, >> >> What IGC needs to work on, with support from civil society >> organization and Internet organizations, is a Civil Society Fund. The >> fund could be set up with a purpose of improving Civil Society >> participation in MAG, IGF and other important events, and could be >> large enough to cover requirements other than travel and >> participation. A group of IGC leaders, together with some well >> connected volunteers could begin work on this and set us such a fund. >> The contribution could come from individuals and civil society >> organizations. We could also reach out to , and from those Business >> Corporations and Governments which are willing to contribute to the >> fund unconditionally. If this can't be done, achieving a balance in >> the multi-stakeholder environment would be difficult. >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:04 AM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> > >> > Re funding for CS participation in the MAG/IGF: there is the practice >> and >> > there is the principle... from a practical perspective the issue of >> funding >> > may certainly be catch as catch can but the effect of that is to give >> > precedence to those who are best in a position to obtain such funding >> and >> > what is being accepted as the principle here is that the worth of >> something >> > (such as civil society participation in governance) is measured by its >> > success in the marketplace (i.e. its capacity to attract funding). Is >> this >> > the principle that we want to accept? >> > >> > We should also be a bit careful I think in looking at remote >> participation >> > as a panacea -- unless the overall structure of participation/decision >> > making/influence rendering is designed/redesigned so as to reflect the >> > legitimacy and equality of remote participation, then with the simple >> > layering on of remote participation we are accepting that some are >> allowed >> > "first class" participation (access to more effective influence on >> > outcomes/decision making) -- f2f -- while others will only have a >> "second >> > class" position -- since we know how much of outcome >> determination/decision >> > making in events such as this takes place during the private f2f >> > interactions coffee breaks, lunches corridor discussions etc. Is this >> the >> > practice we want to accept? >> > >> > 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 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 12:32:34 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:32:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Recommendation Doc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: These issues are of great importance and deserves, if possible, a thorough evaluation is conducted in this direction. An immediate answer to these questions would be risky and lead us still deadlocked. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/15 Marilia Maciel > > I agree with Izumi. This document is already on the format of a report, so > it is more objective and easier to read, although is a tentative document. > > As you will see, the report is divided into 6 sections: > > > A. Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings > > B. Working modalities including open consultations, MAG, and Secretariat > > C. Funding of the IGF > > D. Broadening participation > > E. Linking IGF to other related processes/mechanisms/bodies > > F. Monitoring the implementation of recommendations on improvements to > the IGF > > > Of course, all the points are very important, but I would like to > specifically call your attention to point D, *broadening participation*, > as I believe that goes into the heart of civil society concerns. It is a > topic that impacts stakeholders from developed and developing countries, > even more so after the economic crisis. Broadening participation means > deepening legitimacy of the IGF and increasing the pool of ideas shared in > the meeting, to the benefit of us all. > > Particularly for developing countries, this topic is crucial. Looking at > regional participation at the IGF on previous years (disregarding host > country participants) we see astonishing low levels of physical attendance > from Pacific, Africa and particularly from South America and the Caribbean. > How can we address this? *Are the suggestions made on this draft report > enough? Are they in tune with the real obstacles we all find to take part > in the IGF process*? It would be great to hear your views. > > Marília > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Dear list, >> In addition to the documents already online for CSTD IGF WG, there also is >> an additional document sent to the WG members a few days ago which >> is not yet online. >> >> Though close in substance, it is much easier to read and understand, and >> closer >> to the final report, in my view. >> >> So, under my own responsibility, I am sharing this document with IGC >> list members. Please understand that this is a work-in-progress >> document and my intention is to have better inputs from the list so >> that we can work more productively next week. >> >> All the words here is sort of in square bracket, tentative, until >> everything >> is agreed. >> >> izumi >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > 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 valeriab at apc.org Thu Feb 16 13:54:33 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:54:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominating Committee Report In-Reply-To: References: <0F27FBD9-EBE5-4ED7-9F7E-511F11929CE8@acm.org> <4F3A7FC7.7030502@communisphere.com> <4F3BB5F0.2090401@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <02449F83-84C5-4079-AFF1-21072EF02F71@apc.org> Dear Sala, Thank you for sharing the report. We notice that APC's suggestions are not listed as part of the nominations received. They were submitted to the non voting chair of the IGC Nominating Committee on January 20, 2012. Few days later, we requested to confirm reception, but no response was provided. Would you please clarify for us what happened with our candidates statements? Thanks in advance and best regards, Valeria On 15/02/2012, at 10:26, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > It is with great pleasure that I enclose the MAG Nominating > Committee Report to the Caucus. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:41 AM > Subject: MAG Nominating Committee Report > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Cc: "nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org" > > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro, > > Please find attached the final report of the MAG Nominating Committee. > > For the committee, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > Committee Report > 2 > -11 > -12.rtf>____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Thu Feb 16 13:58:11 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:58:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominating Committee Report In-Reply-To: References: <0F27FBD9-EBE5-4ED7-9F7E-511F11929CE8@acm.org> <4F3A7FC7.7030502@communisphere.com> <4F3BB5F0.2090401@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear Sala, Thank you for sharing the report. We notice that APC's suggestions are not listed as part of the nominations received. They were submitted to the non voting chair of the IGC Nominating Committee on January 20, 2012. Few days later, we requested to confirm reception, but no response was provided. Would you please clarify for us what happened with our candidates statements? Thanks in advance and best regards, Valeria On 15/02/2012, at 10:26, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > It is with great pleasure that I enclose the MAG Nominating > Committee Report to the Caucus. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:41 AM > Subject: MAG Nominating Committee Report > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Cc: "nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org" > > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro, > > Please find attached the final report of the MAG Nominating Committee. > > For the committee, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > Committee Report > 2 > -11 > -12.rtf>____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 14:29:32 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:29:32 +1300 Subject: [governance] MAG Nominating Committee Report In-Reply-To: References: <0F27FBD9-EBE5-4ED7-9F7E-511F11929CE8@acm.org> <4F3A7FC7.7030502@communisphere.com> <4F3BB5F0.2090401@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear Valeria, Thank you for your email. Kindly advise what date(s) you had sent in these Nominations so I can seek clarification. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Dear Sala, > > Thank you for sharing the report. > > We notice that APC's suggestions are not listed as part of the nominations > received. They were submitted to the non voting chair of the IGC > Nominating Committee on January 20, 2012. Few days later, we requested to > confirm reception, but no response was provided. Would you please clarify > for us what happened with our candidates statements? > > Thanks in advance and best regards, > > Valeria > > > On 15/02/2012, at 10:26, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > It is with great pleasure that I enclose the MAG Nominating Committee > Report to the Caucus. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:41 AM > Subject: MAG Nominating Committee Report > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Cc: "nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org" > > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro, > > Please find attached the final report of the MAG Nominating Committee. > > For the committee, > > Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > Report 2-11-12.rtf> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and > Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 16 14:49:01 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:49:01 +1300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, This was sent some 8 hours ago and I am resending as I was advised that it had not reached the list. See my email below: Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Date: Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:49 AM Subject: Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Dear Imran, Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Decision in response to complaint by Imran Ahmed Shah.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56738 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 Feb 16 16:35:33 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:35:33 +0600 Subject: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion In-Reply-To: <4F3CEBE2.7060307@eff.org> References: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF824A685A0@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> <4F3CEBE2.7060307@eff.org> Message-ID: For anyone who is interested the practical (and theoretical) limitations of remote participation these were very clearly in evidence in the attempt to participate remotely in yesterday's session. The problems of poor connectivity, of lack of technical knowledge and skill, the lack of specific preparation, the inability to directly and consequentially draw attention--all of these and others meant that many (most) were unable to even access the communication flow from the session let alone participate in the discussion flow of the meeting a meaningful (and effectual) way. And note that remote participation, which every time it is attempted seems to need to be discovered afresh by the various participants has been around in this context since WSIS and of course in the real world many years before. This isn't to say that remote participation isn't valuable, of course it is. It is to say rather that for it to have any value it needs to be structurally built into the overall meeting system -- and not bolted on, or included as an afterthought or as "a good thing we should try because some folks are clamouring for it". It should be as built into the meeting system as directly as ensuring power supplies, local microphones, and drinking water for the on-site participants. Also, it needs to be specifically planned with its own dedicated resources and specific protocols--for drawing attention, for intervening, for being included in speaking rosters, for having one's comments noted etc.etc. (There is a growing literature on this subject which some of our cs colleagues have been directly contributing to.) But it needs to also be recognized by all parties that the practical issues are not going to go away anytime soon for many if not most of those looking to participate remotely. That being said as part of the plan for including RP as a necessary element there needs to be a plan for adapting the overall meeting structure to the fact that some participants will inevitably and recognizably be privileged in their participation and others will be inevitably discriminated against. Once this is acknowledged then it will be possible to redesign the meeting process/system taking into account this necessary condition and rules of governance developed which recognize and make provision for this. The worst possible situation is what we have right now which that there is an implicit assumption that people are able to participate remotely and that somehow that remote participation is equivalent in significance to direct and f2f participation. If anyone questions any of the above all they need to do is to take a look through the transcript of the skype conversation from yesterday (which BTW doesn't seem to have changed one iota from similar conversations I was having 10+ years ago on ICQ around similar such attempts at RP.) Mike (still under attack from squadrons of unrelenting mosquitoes here in Dhaka... On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > got it! It's working now. : ) > Thanks! > > > On 2/16/12 3:20 AM, Mazzone, Giacomo wrote: > > Dear Katitza, > I said to Chengatai the problem you have. > He is sending you the link to the transcript page... > There is no skype session active. > > I hope this will help. > Besos. > Giacomo > > From: Katitza Rodriguez [mailto:katitza at eff.org] > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:48 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Deirdre > Williams > Cc: Roland Perry > Subject: Re: [governance] A couple of thoughts for the MAG discussion > > Hi folks, > > Someone is in the MAG room can Skype me in? is there a civil society Skype > group? I'm not in today! > > On 2/16/12 1:30 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Dear Roland, > I am living testimony to the frustration you speak about - having got up at > 4.30 to be ready at 5 for the meeting - I can't find the meeting. :-( > Can anybody help please? > Deirdre > > On 16 February 2012 04:54, Roland Perry > wrote: >> >> at 14:32:45 on Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Deirdre Williams >> writes >> >>> One of the people 'at' the MAG meeting >>> this morning was i, rushing off to lobby - electronically - >>> as soon as the meeting was finished. So I would incline to the idea that >>> remote participation is fast losing its 'second class' status, and would >>> push hard for the 'right' that remote participants should NEVER be >>> treated >>> as second class, although they often are now. >> >> >> In order to manage people's expectations, I think there should be a >> grading system for remote participation. >> >> For example, is there a live audio feed, a live video feed, transcriptions >> live or transcriptions archived. Is there an archive of the webcast. Can >> remote participants have questions read out, or can they speak to the >> meeting from their remote location. Is there a facility for chat between >> remote participants. >> >> I'm not suggesting that all of these options have to be available for >> every meeting, but when there's an expectation of being able to participate >> (or indeed as might be the case for today's MAG meeting, to remotely >> observe, which is slightly different) and it turns out the facility is very >> limited, it can be frustrating. >> -- >> 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 > > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of > speech since 1990 > > ________________________________ > > ************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the > mailgateway > ************************************************** > > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of > speech since 1990 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 17:47:03 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:47:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC short Statement on remote participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You timed your intervention beautifully Deirdre On 16 February 2012 12:09, Izumi AIZU wrote: > This is close to what I just said. > > Note I added Executive Coordinator and MAG renewal thing at the bottom. > > izumi > > ---- > IGC Statement on Remote Participation > Feb 15, 2012 > > We like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of > organizing IGF and we appreciate the effort to provide remote > participation for the Open consultation and MAG meetings opened to > observers both in the room and also in remote places. > > We like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from > Politecnico di Torino, or The Polytechnic University of Turin which > was originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola in the first > place. > > Building on that, we like to point out and suggest the followings to > further improve our remote participation, especially mindful of the > limitation of sufficient funding availability for direct participation > we are facing now. > > There were some problems with video feeds. There was not a clear > procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. We > regret that some remote observers were effectively excluded from the > MAG meeting, because they had no access to live transcript. And we > must add that even Mag members trying to participate online had > difficulty in contacting moderators and making proper settings. > > We urge MAG and IGF secretariat and also ourselves, to consider the > followings for the future IGF organizing work and IGF itself and work > together: > > - Provide as much interactivity as possible. > - Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants > - Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation > - Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderator > (who do not have other jobs at the same time and is responsible to > interact between the meeting physical participants+ speaker and the > Remote Participants). > - Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as > real-time transcription and video streaming / coverage of the meeting. > - Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through Remote Participation. > > --- > > Like European Commission and European Union, IGC is also very > concenred on the issue of Executive Secretariat appointment – delaying > this makes the good organizational works of IGFvery difficult. > > Could you, Chiar and DESA tell us when you appoint the new MAG > members? Given a lot of work to come, we like to work together without > much delay. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 george.todoroff.85 at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 02:48:58 2012 From: george.todoroff.85 at gmail.com (George Todoroff) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:48:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Response to DIDP Request 20120117-1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Forwarding this to the list , as it might be interesting. I expected that ICANN would not disclose anything, but decided to give it a try. Cheers, George ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: DIDP Date: 2012/2/17 Subject: Response to DIDP Request 20120117-1 To: george.todoroff.85 at gmail.com Dear Mr. Todoroff, Attached please find a response to DIDP Request 20120117-1 under the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy.  . ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way #330 Marina del Rey, California  90292 Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 Office Fax: +1 310 823 8649 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DIDP-Response-Todoroff-20120117-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49593 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 Fri Feb 17 05:16:55 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:16:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Massive, continuing, and apparently legal invasion of personal privacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9Ux2Xd+XkiPPFAp8@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 10:18:03 on Thu, 16 Feb 2012, George Sadowsky writes >If this group wants a cause célèbre in the area of invasion of personal >privacy, you might want to consider this report: > >http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/google-and-mobile-apps-take-dat >a-books-without-permission/?hpw This kind of thing is the reason I have never used any "standard" email or address book applications bundled with a PC (or a phone) to store contact information. If there's nothing to steal... (Of course, my SIM has a small list of mainly other mobile numbers and a 'nickname' for each, but that's the bare minimum for operational convenience). Do they ask the user if they can "find more friends" then fail to explain that the method they use is to examine your address book, rather than using telepathy or a Ouija board? As a tweet I read yesterday sarcastically said: "Foursquare knows where I am - what a liberty, they should stop that immediately". Or is the "leaky address book friend finding" built in to some of the applications, and you can't stop it at all? Only 'some' of the listed applications apparently fail to get permission, it's unfortunate they don't bother to list which. I've just finished a project to bring more awareness to vulnerable users regarding what information leaks from their smartphone, and there's still more work to do. And understanding what the consequences are of giving permission is the elephant in the room, rather than the failure of some applications to ask. Looking on the bright side, there is concern expressed in the article about eavesdropping of the traffic, but that's encrypted (on the airwave segment at least) by A5 in the case of a smartphones, an extra layer of protection not afforded to fixed Internet users on ADSL or cable. -- 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 Fri Feb 17 05:52:45 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:52:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Open consultation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28072960.55617.1329475966064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h21> Dear Baudoin and all Multistakeholderism is just an empty shell if large parts of CS cannot be able to attend official "open" events where decisions or even recommendations are made. Most, if not all, of these parts of CS orgs are those from DCs, and the main, if not unique, point there is lack of funding. During the open (WSIS Forum 2012) preparatory meeting held in Geneva on last November, EUROLINC, through the voice of its president Louis Pouzin, made en official statement on this very point that suggested a financial contribution from ICANN for this specific -Internet related- activity. Here is the link to this statement :  http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article77 I wonder why nobody on the list mentions this important suggestion (i.a. APC was present at this meeting). Imho, the proposal of EUROLONK is serious and documented. Therefore I'd encourage CS involved in the IG process -the Caucus on IG in particular- to strongly supports it. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT France > Message du 16/02/12 02:09 > De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Deirdre Williams" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Open consultation > > Hello Williams, > > I acquired your point of view because in fact a good communication in a country like within a community is one of the prime factors in all human relationships. The concerns raised last time this is not just the politicians, scientists, technicians but different social groups represented by the various entities of civil society must also be involved in discussions. With this in mind, respecting building on the principle of multistakeholderism, we thought our exchanges organized locally by relying on academic institutions, private sector, ICT technicians, international agencies, subregional and regional active instiutions in the country with civil society entities that represent the users, ie consumers of ICT. > Institutions designated by combining academic, we have 80% chance to set up hub to allow people of the DRC to participate remotely, each as possible, in discussions at local, sub regional, regional and international levels. > > This process requires very good planning and that's what we have already begun. > > The language aspect is also in the privileged position because in this world of knowledge said, the language of communication has its very high up. > The national IGF is an indispensable support and essential for IGF subregional, regional and international levels. > > Nothing durable can be designed if the nationals IGF  are not considered base in all these approaches. > > It is for this reason that even the level of funding, the participation of active and useful really is becoming more problematic in developing countries. We must think about it. > We do not need the extras. Official delegations present but physically absent in the debates or without any relevant contributions must also be raised even if it is already always use the emblematic issue of "sovereignty". > > It should also assess the active participation of official delegations. > > In short we need to talk and not exclude us. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype                 : b.schombe > blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net >   > > > > > 2012/2/14 Deirdre Williams > I should have sent this to the list yesterday. Sorry it's so long. Deirdre > Comments from me and on submissions made by others: There  appears to be a need to change perspective. There has been a shift so that now development is not only an issue between countries – north and south – but can also be a stratification issue within countries – a rich developed top layer and a poor underdeveloped lower layer both in the north and in the south. This needs to be recognised.   Remote participation (RP) needs an improved status. This is both a technology issue and a recognition issue. The technology must make it possible, and the recognition should as far as possible give it equal status. There also need to be excellent remote participation moderators to act as interface at meetings. And the issue of linguistic inclusion also needs to be addressed with the possibility of several moderators covering several different languages. I know this is a lot to ask for but equality is not just an Anglophone quality. Perhaps initially willing face to face participants could be ‘conscripted’ to provide inclusion in their various languages.   ISOC   Remote participation The growth in the number of remote hubs and the increase of remote participants that went with remote hubs is a basis to build on to overcome the challenge and cost of travel to attend meetings. – agree 100%   National Regional IGFs There is a need to enhance the exchange of reports between these two interfaces to continue and grow going forward. – definitely – perhaps a mechanism to do this could be set up – or encouraged and improved?   Funding This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of value to its participants. – I have grave concerns where value is always equated with money.   we view the Internet as an enabler for a wide range of human rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and opinion and access to information and knowledge as well as the right to association - agree   filtering  be part of  the main agenda of the 2012 IGF. DNS filtering is increasingly used by governments to combat allegedly illegal online activities, and this technical measure raises strong concerns, not only with regard to the underlying Internet architecture, but also with regard to due legal process and human rights, while not solving the problems at their source. – this is certainly an issue, but I also find John Carr’s arguments re blocking in the context of child pornography very convincing. How to reconcile the unreconcilable?   APC In Nairobi, a concrete proposal to create a global internet governance body was put on the table by governments from developing countries (the IBSA proposal) , which resulted in exactly the kind of intense and diverse debate that the IGF was created for. APC applauds this kind of active agenda-setting of developing countries as a positive step to counteract exclusion and the predominance of developed country agendas as the typical starting points for discussion. However as we see it the question about the best way to discuss development in relation to internet governance remains unanswered – this is what triggered my first comment (see above) (Change the perspective – not so much countries, more social strata)   The need for clearly-defined rules within which to operate, and an appropriate level of transparency was also highlighted - yes   if data discrimination for mobile internet is a technical necessity, then policy-makers must define and clearly outline the principles for governing such practices. – yes, and there should be general harmonisation of policy as much as possible.   However, high prices remain a problem.  Electricity is still widely unavailable and mobile phones are often prohibitively expensive for the poorest in society, and prices for mobile subscriptions are artificially high due to licensing fees and competition issues. There is an urgent need for these critical barriers to universal mobile internet to be addressed through communications policy and strategy – yes. At least in Saint Lucia there is a government tax of 15% on mobile services – a very healthy revenue generator.   the issue of conflict minerals needs to be on the agenda for the next IGF. Policy-makers must establish clear guidelines and legislation that address issues of traceability, accountability and responsibility in the mineral procurement chain.  – this also needs greater public awareness. Can this be taken together with the issue of ICT waste and recycling?   internet intermediary liability, the impact of restrictions on freedom of expression and association, and responding to violence against women online. - yes   freedom of association online needs to be assigned the same level of importance as freedom of expression has in IGF debates. Indeed the two are inextricably linked and interdependent. - YES   Balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge -YES   Disparities in access between rich and poor, urban and rural areas serve to exacerbate existing social inequalities. – see my first point above   human rights be the main theme of IGF in 2012 – good idea   internet access as a human right, freedom of expression and freedom of association. Human rights topics which became visible for the first time at the IGF included: • a human rights approach to mobile • remedies for internet rights violations • human rights and corporate responsibility • the rights of disabled people and young people.   (who speaks for whom? Profile of mag;  consider the person or consider the ideas; do outward and visible signs automatically contain the inferred inward and spiritual grace? In other words how to balance the individual profile of the representative with the broader profile of the constituency represented)   Human rights is the framework with which we judge the merits of ICT policy. To us internet governance has to assume a rights-based framework. Business and technical decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they must be informed and measured by respect for the rights and wellbeing of the people who will be using technology We need more cross-pollination between business, law enforcement, civil society and the technical communities.  Rather than talking about each other, we should be speaking to each other – YES AND YES AND YES   NRO Remote Participation was improved in 2011 compared to 2010, but there is still much to be done to improve this important tool for strengthening accessibility. – see above • Continue to encourage Regional Hubs and support greater direct participation between them and the IGF sessions in order to allow a bidirectional flow of discussions – see above   Build a link between Regional IG discussions and the MAG for feedback and information Sharing – see above     > -- > “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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 17 06:54:59 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:54:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Open consultation In-Reply-To: <28072960.55617.1329475966064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h21> References: <28072960.55617.1329475966064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h21> Message-ID: Hi, Doesn't icann already support the igf financially? Rgds, McTim On Friday, February 17, 2012, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Baudoin and all > > Multistakeholderism is just an empty shell if large parts of CS cannot be > able to attend official "open" events where decisions or even > recommendations are made. Most, if not all, of these parts of CS orgs are > those from DCs, and the main, if not unique, point there is lack of funding. > > During the open (WSIS Forum 2012) preparatory meeting held in Geneva on > last November, EUROLINC, through the voice of its president Louis Pouzin, > made en official statement on this very point that suggested a financial > contribution from ICANN for this specific -Internet related- activity. > > Here is the link to this statement : > http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article77 > > I wonder why nobody on the list mentions this important suggestion (i.a. > APC was present at this meeting). > > Imho, the proposal of EUROLONK is serious and documented. Therefore I'd > encourage CS involved in the IG process -the Caucus on IG in particular- to > strongly supports it. > > Best > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT France > > > > > > > Message du 16/02/12 02:09 > > De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>, "Deirdre Williams" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Open consultation > > > > Hello Williams, > > > > I acquired your point of view because in fact a good communication in a > country like within a community is one of the prime factors in all human > relationships. The concerns raised last time this is not just the politicians, > scientists, technicians but different social groups represented by the > various entities of civil society must also be involved in discussions. With > this in mind, respecting building on the principle of multistakeholderism, we > thought our exchanges organized locally by relying on academic > institutions, private sector, ICT technicians, international agencies, subregional > and regional active instiutions in the country with civil society entities that > represent the users, ie consumers of ICT. > > Institutions designated by combining academic, we have 80% chance to set > up hub to allow people of the DRC to participate remotely, each as > possible, in discussions at local, sub regional, regional and > international levels. > > > > This process requires very good planning and that's what we have > already begun. > > > > The language aspect is also in the privileged position because in this > world of knowledge said, the language of communication has its very high > up. > > The national IGF is an indispensable support and essential for IGF subregional, > regional and international levels. > > > > Nothing durable can be designed if the nationals IGF are not considered > base in all these approaches. > > > > It is for this reason that even the level of funding, the participation > of active and useful really is becoming more problematic in developing > countries. We must think about it. > > We do not need the extras. Official delegations present but physically > absent in the debates or without any relevant contributions must also be > raised even if it is already always use the emblematic issue of " > sovereignty". > > > > It should also assess the active participation of official delegations. > > > > In short we need to talk and not > > -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 07:22:38 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:22:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Open consultation In-Reply-To: <28072960.55617.1329475966064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h21> References: <28072960.55617.1329475966064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h21> Message-ID: <1329481358.69875.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Jean-Louis, and All IGC Members, Thanks for pointing out the main concern and sharing the information about the EUROLINK proposed the financial support from ICANN.   Being a "not-for-profit public-benefit corporation", it has excessive funds in reserve and have provisioning of gTLDs Applications Evaluation and yearly fee.   However, there is nothing significant at ICANN to support LDCs, they could allow 100% waiver of Evaluation Fee for gTLD Applicants from Developing or Least Developed Countries as they accepted for IDN ccTLD Fast Track program but they will charge full fee (the 76% still have to be paid by the Special Fund of $2M).   ICANN has Travel Support mechanism (including Fellowship Program) but the provisioning for the sponsoring to IGF meetings is a new thing for the support program.   A: Couple of months ago I suggested on this IGC list to proposed for IGF to bring some similar Travel Support mechanism, but no supported arguments reflected. If again it become possible, the IGF Travel Support Program (IGF-TSP) could be a better solution. This  IGF-TSP could be sponsored UN/IGF ask funding support organizations, thus the ICANN may be one of the sponsoring organization as well.   B: If the IGF itself can not manage funds for its own MAG, why not all the meetings goes Online with some Remote Partcipation through Comprehensive Remote Meeting Application Tool.   Members may share their comments, and if agreed, the "IGC Open consultation statement" may include this proposal.   Thanks and Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah [from IGFPAK] >________________________________ >From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin SCHOMBE >Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012, 15:52 >Subject: Re: [governance] Open consultation > > >Dear Baudoin and all > >Multistakeholderism is just an empty shell if large parts of CS cannot be able to attend official "open" events where decisions or even recommendations are made. Most, if not all, of these parts of CS orgs are those from DCs, and the main, if not unique, point there is lack of funding. > >During the open (WSIS Forum 2012) preparatory meeting held in Geneva on last November, EUROLINC, through the voice of its president Louis Pouzin, made en official statement on this very point that suggested a financial contribution from ICANN for this specific -Internet related- activity. > >Here is the link to this statement :  http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article77 > >I wonder why nobody on the list mentions this important suggestion (i.a. APC was present at this meeting). > >Imho, the proposal of EUROLONK is serious and documented. Therefore I'd encourage CS involved in the IG process -the Caucus on IG in particular- to strongly supports it. > >Best > >Jean-Louis Fullsack >CSDPTT France > > > > > > >> Message du 16/02/12 02:09 >>> De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE" >>> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Deirdre Williams" >>> Copie à : >>> Objet : Re: [governance] Open consultation >>> >>> Hello Williams, >>> >>> I acquired your point of view because in fact a good communication in a country like within a community is one of the prime factors in all human relationships. The concerns raised last time this is not just the politicians, scientists, technicians but different social groups represented by the various entities of civil society must also be involved in discussions. With this in mind, respecting building on the principle of multistakeholderism, we thought our exchanges organized locally by relying on academic institutions, private sector, ICT technicians, international agencies, subregional and regional active instiutions in the country with civil society entities that represent the users, ie consumers of ICT. >>> Institutions designated by combining academic, we have 80% chance to set up hub to allow people of the DRC to participate remotely, each as possible, in discussions at local, sub regional, regional and international levels. >>> >>> This process requires very good planning and that's what we have already begun. >>> >>> The language aspect is also in the privileged position because in this world of knowledge said, the language of communication has its very high up. >>> The national IGF is an indispensable supportand essential for IGF subregional, regional and international levels. >>> >>> Nothing durable can be designed if the nationals IGF are not considered base in all these approaches. >>> >>> It is for this reason that even the level of funding, the participation of active and useful really is becoming more problematic in developing countries. We must think about it. >>> We do not need the extras. Official delegations present but physically absent in the debates or without any relevant contributions must also be raised even if it is already always use the emblematic issue of "sovereignty". >>> >>> It should also assess the active participation of official delegations. >>> >>> In shortwe needtotalkand notexclude us. >>> >>> >>SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >>> >>> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 >>> email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com >>> skype                 : b.schombe >>> blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >>> Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>2012/2/14 Deirdre Williams >>> >>I should have sent this to the list yesterday. >>>Sorry it's so long. >>>Deirdre >>> >>>> >>>Comments from me and on submissions made by others: >>>There  appears to be a need to change perspective. There has been a shift so that now development is not only an issue between countries – north and south – but can also be a stratification issue within countries – a rich developed top layer and a poor underdeveloped lower layer both in the north and in the south. This needs to be recognised. >>>  >>>Remote participation (RP) needs an improved status. This is both a technology issue and a recognition issue. The technology must make it possible, and the recognition should as far as possible give it equal status. There also need to be excellent remote participation moderators to act as interface at meetings. And the issue of linguistic inclusion also needs to be addressed with the possibility of several moderators covering several different languages. I know this is a lot to ask for but equality is not just an Anglophone quality. Perhaps initially willing face to face participants could be ‘conscripted’ to provide inclusion in their various languages. >>>  >>>ISOC >>>  >>>Remote participation >>>The growth in the number of remote hubs and the increase of remote participants that >>>went with remote hubs is a basis to build on to overcome the challenge and cost >>>of travel to attend meetings. – agree 100% >>>  >>>National Regional IGFs >>>There is a need to enhance the exchange of reports between these two interfaces to >>>continue and grow going forward. – definitely – perhaps a mechanism to do this could be set up – or encouraged and improved? >>>  >>>Funding >>>This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of value to its participants. – I have grave concerns where value is always equated with money. >>>  >>>we view the Internet as an enabler for a wide range of human rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and opinion and access to information and knowledge as well as the right to association - agree >>>  >>>filtering  be part of  the main agenda of the 2012 IGF. DNS filtering is increasingly used by governments to combat allegedly illegal online activities, and this technical measure raises strong concerns, not only with regard to the underlying Internet architecture, but also with regard to due legal process and human rights, while not solving the problems at their source. – this is certainly an issue, but I also find John Carr’s arguments re blocking in the context of child pornography very convincing. How to reconcile the unreconcilable? >>>  >>>APC >>>In Nairobi, a concrete proposal to create a global internet governance body was put on the >>>table by governments from developing countries (the IBSA proposal) , which resulted in >>>exactly the kind of intense and diverse debate that the IGF was created for. APC applauds this kind of active agenda-setting of developing countries as a positive step to counteract exclusion and the predominance of developed country agendas as the typical starting points for discussion. >>>However as we see it the question about the best way to discuss development in relation to internet governance remains unanswered – this is what triggered my first comment (see above) >>>(Change the perspective – not so much countries, more social strata) >>>  >>>The need for clearly-defined rules within which to operate, and an appropriate level of >>>transparency was also highlighted - yes >>>  >>>if data discrimination for mobile internet is a technical necessity, then policy-makers must define and clearly outline the principles for governing such practices. – yes, and there should be general harmonisation of policy as much as possible. >>>  >>>However, high prices remain a problem.  Electricity is still widely unavailable and mobile phones are often prohibitively expensive for the poorest in society, and prices for mobile subscriptions are artificially high due to licensing fees and competition issues. There is an urgent need for these critical barriers to universal mobile internet to be addressed through communications policy and strategy – yes. At least in Saint Lucia there is a government tax of 15% on mobile services – a very healthy revenue generator. >>>  >>>the issue of conflict minerals needs to be on the agenda for the next IGF. Policy-makers must establish clear guidelines and legislation that address issues of traceability, accountability and responsibility in the mineral procurement chain.  – this also needs greater public awareness. Can this be taken together with the issue of ICT waste and recycling? >>>  >>>internet intermediary liability, the impact of restrictions on freedom of expression and association, and responding to violence against women online. - yes >>>  >>>freedom of association online needs to be assigned the same level of importance as freedom of expression has in IGF debates. Indeed the two are inextricably linked and interdependent. - YES >>>  >>>Balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge -YES >>>  >>>Disparities in access between rich and poor, urban and rural areas serve to exacerbate existing social inequalities. – see my first point above >>>  >>>human rights be the main theme of IGF in 2012 – good idea >>>  >>>internet access as a human right, freedom of expression and freedom of association. >>>Human rights topics which became visible for the first time at the IGF included: >>>• a human rights approach to mobile >>>• remedies for internet rights violations >>>• human rights and corporate responsibility >>>• the rights of disabled people and young people. >>>  >>>(who speaks for whom? Profile of mag;  consider the person or consider the ideas; do outward and visible signs automatically contain the inferred inward and spiritual grace? In other words how to balance the individual profile of the representative with the broader profile of the constituency represented) >>>  >>>Human rights is the framework with which we judge the merits of ICT policy. To us internet governance has to assume a rights-based framework. Business and technical decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they must be informed and measured by respect for the rights and wellbeing of the people who will be using technology >>>We need more cross-pollination between business, law enforcement, civil society and the >>>technical communities.  Rather than talking about each other, we should be speaking to each other – YES AND YES AND YES >>>  >>>NRO >>>Remote Participation was improved in 2011 compared to 2010, but there is still much to be >>>done to improve this important tool for strengthening accessibility. – see above >>>• Continue to encourage Regional Hubs and support greater direct participation between them >>>and the IGF sessions in order to allow a bidirectional flow of discussions – see above >>>  >>>Build a link between Regional IG discussions and the MAG for feedback and information >>>Sharing – see above  >>>  >>> >>>> -- >>>> “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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 17 07:43:34 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:43:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Open consultation In-Reply-To: <1329481358.69875.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <28072960.55617.1329475966064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h21> <1329481358.69875.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1329482614.69265.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> .... continued to follwing previous email ..... With reference to LDC Support, we also have seen that how the Event of DAKAR Summit for Developing Countries was neglected, last year. Even the Remote Particiaption was not arranged. Imran >________________________________ >From: Imran Ahmed Shah >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Baudouin SCHOMBE ; Jean-Louis FULLSACK >Cc: "Imran @IGFPak.org" >Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012, 17:22 >Subject: Re: [governance] Open consultation > > >Dear Jean-Louis, and All IGC Members, >Thanks for pointing out the main concern and sharing the information about the EUROLINK proposed the financial support from ICANN. >  >Being a "not-for-profit public-benefit corporation", it has excessive funds in reserve and have provisioning of gTLDs Applications Evaluation and yearly fee. >  >However, there is nothing significant at ICANN to support LDCs, they could allow 100% waiver of Evaluation Fee for gTLD Applicants from Developing or Least Developed Countries as they accepted for IDN ccTLD Fast Track program but they will charge full fee (the 76% still have to be paid by the Special Fund of $2M). >  >ICANN has Travel Support mechanism (including Fellowship Program) but the provisioning for the sponsoring to IGF meetings is a new thing for the support program. >  >A: Couple of months ago I suggested on this IGC list to proposed for IGF to bring some similar Travel Support mechanism, but no supported arguments reflected. If again it become possible, the IGF Travel Support Program (IGF-TSP) could be a better solution. This  IGF-TSP could be sponsored UN/IGF ask funding support organizations, thus the ICANN may be one of the sponsoring organization as well. >  >B: If the IGF itself can not manage funds for its own MAG, why not all the meetings goes Online with some Remote Partcipation through Comprehensive Remote Meeting Application Tool. >  >Members may share their comments, and if agreed, the "IGC Open consultation statement" may include this proposal. >  >Thanks and Regards >  >Imran Ahmed Shah >[from IGFPAK] > > >>________________________________ >>From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK >>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin SCHOMBE >>Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012, 15:52 >>Subject: Re: [governance] Open consultation >> >> >>Dear Baudoin and all >> >>Multistakeholderism is just an empty shell if large parts of CS cannot be able to attend official "open" events where decisions or even recommendations are made. Most, if not all, of these parts of CS orgs are those from DCs, and the main, if not unique, point there is lack of funding. >> >>During the open (WSIS Forum 2012) preparatory meeting held in Geneva on last November, EUROLINC, through the voice of its president Louis Pouzin, made en official statement on this very point that suggested a financial contribution from ICANN for this specific -Internet related- activity. >> >>Here is the link to this statement :  http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article77 >> >>I wonder why nobody on the list mentions this important suggestion (i.a. APC was present at this meeting). >> >>Imho, the proposal of EUROLONK is serious and documented. Therefore I'd encourage CS involved in the IG process -the Caucus on IG in particular- to strongly supports it. >> >>Best >> >>Jean-Louis Fullsack >>CSDPTT France >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Message du 16/02/12 02:09 >>>> De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE" >>>> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Deirdre Williams" >>>> Copie à : >>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Open consultation >>>> >>>> Hello Williams, >>>> >>>> I acquired your point of view because in fact a good communication in a country like within a community is one of the prime factors in all human relationships. The concerns raised last time this is not just the politicians, scientists, technicians but different social groups represented by the various entities of civil society must also be involved in discussions. With this in mind, respecting building on the principle of multistakeholderism, we thought our exchanges organized locally by relying on academic institutions, private sector, ICT technicians, international agencies, subregional and regional active instiutions in the country with civil society entities that represent the users, ie consumers of ICT. >>>> Institutions designated by combining academic, we have 80% chance to set up hub to allow people of the DRC to participate remotely, each as possible, in discussions at local, sub regional, regional and international levels. >>>> >>>> This process requires very good planning and that's what we have already begun. >>>> >>>> The language aspect is also in the privileged position because in this world of knowledge said, the language of communication has its very high up. >>>> The national IGF is an indispensable supportand essential for IGF subregional, regional and international levels. >>>> >>>> Nothing durable can be designed if the nationals IGF are not considered base in all these approaches. >>>> >>>> It is for this reason that even the level of funding, the participation of active and useful really is becoming more problematic in developing countries. We must think about it. >>>> We do not need the extras. Official delegations present but physically absent in the debates or without any relevant contributions must also be raised even if it is already always use the emblematic issue of "sovereignty". >>>> >>>> It should also assess the active participation of official delegations. >>>> >>>> In shortwe needtotalkand notexclude us. >>>> >>>> >>>SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >>>> >>>> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 >>>> email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com >>>> skype                 : b.schombe >>>> blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >>>> Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net >>>>   >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>2012/2/14 Deirdre Williams >>>> >>>I should have sent this to the list yesterday. >>>>Sorry it's so long. >>>>Deirdre >>>> >>>>> >>>>Comments from me and on submissions made by others: >>>>There  appears to be a need to change perspective. There has been a shift so that now development is not only an issue between countries – north and south – but can also be a stratification issue within countries – a rich developed top layer and a poor underdeveloped lower layer both in the north and in the south. This needs to be recognised. >>>>  >>>>Remote participation (RP) needs an improved status. This is both a technology issue and a recognition issue. The technology must make it possible, and the recognition should as far as possible give it equal status. There also need to be excellent remote participation moderators to act as interface at meetings. And the issue of linguistic inclusion also needs to be addressed with the possibility of several moderators covering several different languages. I know this is a lot to ask for but equality is not just an Anglophone quality. Perhaps initially willing face to face participants could be ‘conscripted’ to provide inclusion in their various languages. >>>>  >>>>ISOC >>>>  >>>>Remote participation >>>>The growth in the number of remote hubs and the increase of remote participants that >>>>went with remote hubs is a basis to build on to overcome the challenge and cost >>>>of travel to attend meetings. – agree 100% >>>>  >>>>National Regional IGFs >>>>There is a need to enhance the exchange of reports between these two interfaces to >>>>continue and grow going forward. – definitely – perhaps a mechanism to do this could be set up – or encouraged and improved? >>>>  >>>>Funding >>>>This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of value to its participants. – I have grave concerns where value is always equated with money. >>>>  >>>>we view the Internet as an enabler for a wide range of human rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and opinion and access to information and knowledge as well as the right to association - agree >>>>  >>>>filtering  be part of  the main agenda of the 2012 IGF. DNS filtering is increasingly used by governments to combat allegedly illegal online activities, and this technical measure raises strong concerns, not only with regard to the underlying Internet architecture, but also with regard to due legal process and human rights, while not solving the problems at their source. – this is certainly an issue, but I also find John Carr’s arguments re blocking in the context of child pornography very convincing. How to reconcile the unreconcilable? >>>>  >>>>APC >>>>In Nairobi, a concrete proposal to create a global internet governance body was put on the >>>>table by governments from developing countries (the IBSA proposal) , which resulted in >>>>exactly the kind of intense and diverse debate that the IGF was created for. APC applauds this kind of active agenda-setting of developing countries as a positive step to counteract exclusion and the predominance of developed country agendas as the typical starting points for discussion. >>>>However as we see it the question about the best way to discuss development in relation to internet governance remains unanswered – this is what triggered my first comment (see above) >>>>(Change the perspective – not so much countries, more social strata) >>>>  >>>>The need for clearly-defined rules within which to operate, and an appropriate level of >>>>transparency was also highlighted - yes >>>>  >>>>if data discrimination for mobile internet is a technical necessity, then policy-makers must define and clearly outline the principles for governing such practices. – yes, and there should be general harmonisation of policy as much as possible. >>>>  >>>>However, high prices remain a problem.  Electricity is still widely unavailable and mobile phones are often prohibitively expensive for the poorest in society, and prices for mobile subscriptions are artificially high due to licensing fees and competition issues. There is an urgent need for these critical barriers to universal mobile internet to be addressed through communications policy and strategy – yes. At least in Saint Lucia there is a government tax of 15% on mobile services – a very healthy revenue generator. >>>>  >>>>the issue of conflict minerals needs to be on the agenda for the next IGF. Policy-makers must establish clear guidelines and legislation that address issues of traceability, accountability and responsibility in the mineral procurement chain.  – this also needs greater public awareness. Can this be taken together with the issue of ICT waste and recycling? >>>>  >>>>internet intermediary liability, the impact of restrictions on freedom of expression and association, and responding to violence against women online. - yes >>>>  >>>>freedom of association online needs to be assigned the same level of importance as freedom of expression has in IGF debates. Indeed the two are inextricably linked and interdependent. - YES >>>>  >>>>Balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge -YES >>>>  >>>>Disparities in access between rich and poor, urban and rural areas serve to exacerbate existing social inequalities. – see my first point above >>>>  >>>>human rights be the main theme of IGF in 2012 – good idea >>>>  >>>>internet access as a human right, freedom of expression and freedom of association. >>>>Human rights topics which became visible for the first time at the IGF included: >>>>• a human rights approach to mobile >>>>• remedies for internet rights violations >>>>• human rights and corporate responsibility >>>>• the rights of disabled people and young people. >>>>  >>>>(who speaks for whom? Profile of mag;  consider the person or consider the ideas; do outward and visible signs automatically contain the inferred inward and spiritual grace? In other words how to balance the individual profile of the representative with the broader profile of the constituency represented) >>>>  >>>>Human rights is the framework with which we judge the merits of ICT policy. To us internet governance has to assume a rights-based framework. Business and technical decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they must be informed and measured by respect for the rights and wellbeing of the people who will be using technology >>>>We need more cross-pollination between business, law enforcement, civil society and the >>>>technical communities.  Rather than talking about each other, we should be speaking to each other – YES AND YES AND YES >>>>  >>>>NRO >>>>Remote Participation was improved in 2011 compared to 2010, but there is still much to be >>>>done to improve this important tool for strengthening accessibility. – see above >>>>• Continue to encourage Regional Hubs and support greater direct participation between them >>>>and the IGF sessions in order to allow a bidirectional flow of discussions – see above >>>>  >>>>Build a link between Regional IG discussions and the MAG for feedback and information >>>>Sharing – see above  >>>>  >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> “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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 17 12:58:58 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:58:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Open consultation In-Reply-To: <1329481358.69875.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <28072960.55617.1329475966064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h21> <1329481358.69875.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I agree with the general call for funding support for physical presence at these meetings, but I would like to consider that separately I think we have to try to win for Remote Participation the attention and priority that it deserves. I rather like Imran's proposal B (see below) - what do people think about proposing that a percentage of the meetings be set up as RP only? (maybe 50%???) I dislike the level playing field metaphor, but that would certainly level things A LOT. Of course there are many other things that need to be thought through carefully - like the time zone question - but I don't think that presents an insurmountable difficulty. An important 'other thing' is the point made earlier this week by Avri about bandwidth and reliable connectivity - those who have and those who don't. I've put it by itself because it is probably the most important of all in thinking about an RP only meeting. What do other people think? Deirdre On 17 February 2012 08:22, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > .... > > B: If the IGF itself can not manage funds for its own MAG, why not all the > meetings goes Online with some Remote Partcipation through Comprehensive > Remote Meeting Application Tool. > .... > > Imran Ahmed Shah**** > [from IGFPAK] > > *From:* Jean-Louis FULLSACK > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin SCHOMBE > > *Sent:* Friday, 17 February 2012, 15:52 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Open consultation > > Dear Baudoin and all > > Multistakeholderism is just an empty shell if large parts of CS cannot be > able to attend official "open" events where decisions or even > recommendations are made. Most, if not all, of these parts of CS orgs are > those from DCs, and the main, if not unique, point there is lack of funding. > > During the open (WSIS Forum 2012) preparatory meeting held in Geneva on > last November, EUROLINC, through the voice of its president Louis Pouzin, > made en official statement on this very point that suggested a financial > contribution from ICANN for this specific -Internet related- activity. > > Here is the link to this statement : > http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article77 > > I wonder why nobody on the list mentions this important suggestion (i.a. > APC was present at this meeting). > > Imho, the proposal of EUROLONK is serious and documented. Therefore I'd > encourage CS involved in the IG process -the Caucus on IG in particular- to > strongly supports it. > > Best > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CSDPTT France > > > > > > > Message du 16/02/12 02:09 > > De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Deirdre Williams" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Open consultation > > > > Hello Williams, > > > > I acquired your point of view because in fact a good communication in a > country like within a community is one of the prime factors in all human > relationships. The concerns raised last time this is not just the politicians, > scientists, technicians but different social groups represented by the > various entities of civil society must also be involved in discussions. With > this in mind, respecting building on the principle of multistakeholderism, we > thought our exchanges organized locally by relying on academic > institutions, private sector, ICT technicians, international agencies, subregional > and regional active instiutions in the country with civil society entities that > represent the users, ie consumers of ICT. > > Institutions designated by combining academic, we have 80% chance to set > up hub to allow people of the DRC to participate remotely, each as > possible, in discussions at local, sub regional, regional and > international levels. > > > > This process requires very good planning and that's what we have > already begun. > > > > The language aspect is also in the privileged position because in this > world of knowledge said, the language of communication has its very high > up. > > The national IGF is an indispensable support and essential for IGF subregional, > regional and international levels. > > > > Nothing durable can be designed if the nationals IGF are not considered > base in all these approaches. > > > > It is for this reason that even the level of funding, the participation > of active and useful really is becoming more problematic in developing > countries. We must think about it. > > We do not need the extras. Official delegations present but physically > absent in the debates or without any relevant contributions must also be > raised even if it is already always use the emblematic issue of " > sovereignty". > > > > It should also assess the active participation of official delegations. > > > > In short we need to talk and not exclude us. > > > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > > skype : b.schombe > > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2012/2/14 Deirdre Williams > > > > I should have sent this to the list yesterday. > Sorry it's so long. > Deirdre > > > > Comments from me and on submissions made by others: > There appears to be a need to change perspective. There has been a shift > so that now development is not only an issue between countries – north and > south – but can also be a stratification issue within countries – a rich > developed top layer and a poor underdeveloped lower layer both in the north > and in the south. This needs to be recognised. > > Remote participation (RP) needs an improved status. This is both a > technology issue and a recognition issue. The technology must make it > possible, and the recognition should as far as possible give it equal > status. There also need to be excellent remote participation moderators to > act as interface at meetings. And the issue of linguistic inclusion also > needs to be addressed with the possibility of several moderators covering > several different languages. I know this is a lot to ask for but equality > is not just an Anglophone quality. Perhaps initially willing face to face > participants could be ‘conscripted’ to provide inclusion in their various > languages. > > ISOC > > Remote participation > The growth in the number of remote hubs and the increase of remote > participants that > went with remote hubs is a basis to build on to overcome the challenge and > cost > of travel to attend meetings. – agree 100% > > National Regional IGFs > There is a need to enhance the exchange of reports between these two > interfaces to > continue and grow going forward. – definitely – perhaps a mechanism to do > this could be set up – or encouraged and improved? > > Funding > This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of > value to its participants. – I have grave concerns where value is always > equated with money. > > we view the Internet as an enabler for a wide range of human rights, such > as the right to freedom of expression and opinion and access to information > and knowledge as well as the right to association - agree > > filtering be part of the main agenda of the 2012 IGF. DNS filtering is > increasingly used by governments to combat allegedly illegal online > activities, and this technical measure raises strong concerns, not only > with regard to the underlying Internet architecture, but also with regard > to due legal process and human rights, while not solving the problems at > their source. – this is certainly an issue, but I also find John Carr’s > arguments re blocking in the context of child pornography very convincing. > How to reconcile the unreconcilable? > > APC > In Nairobi, a concrete proposal to create a global internet governance > body was put on the > table by governments from developing countries (the IBSA proposal) , which > resulted in > exactly the kind of intense and diverse debate that the IGF was created > for. APC applauds this kind of active agenda-setting of developing > countries as a positive step to counteract exclusion and the predominance > of developed country agendas as the typical starting points for discussion. > However as we see it the question about the best way to discuss > development in relation to internet governance remains unanswered – this is > what triggered my first comment (see above) > (Change the perspective – not so much countries, more social strata) > > The need for clearly-defined rules within which to operate, and an > appropriate level of > transparency was also highlighted - yes > > if data discrimination for mobile internet is a technical necessity, then > policy-makers must define and clearly outline the principles for governing > such practices. – yes, and there should be general harmonisation of policy > as much as possible. > > However, high prices remain a problem. Electricity is still widely > unavailable and mobile phones are often prohibitively expensive for the > poorest in society, and prices for mobile subscriptions are artificially > high due to licensing fees and competition issues. There is an urgent need > for these critical barriers to universal mobile internet to be addressed > through communications policy and strategy – yes. At least in Saint Lucia > there is a government tax of 15% on mobile services – a very healthy > revenue generator. > > the issue of conflict minerals needs to be on the agenda for the next IGF. > Policy-makers must establish clear guidelines and legislation that address > issues of traceability, accountability and responsibility in the mineral > procurement chain. – this also needs greater public awareness. Can this be > taken together with the issue of ICT waste and recycling? > > internet intermediary liability, the impact of restrictions on freedom of > expression and association, and responding to violence against women > online. - yes > > freedom of association online needs to be assigned the same level of > importance as freedom of expression has in IGF debates. Indeed the two are > inextricably linked and interdependent. - YES > > Balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge -YES > > Disparities in access between rich and poor, urban and rural areas serve > to exacerbate existing social inequalities. – see my first point above > > human rights be the main theme of IGF in 2012 – good idea > > internet access as a human right, freedom of expression and freedom of > association. > Human rights topics which became visible for the first time at the IGF > included: > • a human rights approach to mobile > • remedies for internet rights violations > • human rights and corporate responsibility > • the rights of disabled people and young people. > > (who speaks for whom? Profile of mag; consider the person or consider the > ideas; do outward and visible signs automatically contain the inferred > inward and spiritual grace? In other words how to balance the individual > profile of the representative with the broader profile of the constituency > represented) > > Human rights is the framework with which we judge the merits of ICT > policy. To us internet governance has to assume a rights-based framework. > Business and technical decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they must be > informed and measured by respect for the rights and wellbeing of the people > who will be using technology > We need more cross-pollination between business, law enforcement, civil > society and the > technical communities. Rather than talking about each other, we should be > speaking to each other – YES AND YES AND YES > > NRO > Remote Participation was improved in 2011 compared to 2010, but there is > still much to be > done to improve this important tool for strengthening accessibility. – see > above > • Continue to encourage Regional Hubs and support greater direct > participation between them > and the IGF sessions in order to allow a bidirectional flow of discussions > – see above > > Build a link between Regional IG discussions and the MAG for feedback and > information > Sharing – see above > > > > > > -- > > “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 > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 13:42:31 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:42:31 +1200 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG [Message from Co-Coordinator] Message-ID: Dear All, For those who would wish to have their candidatures or nominees for MAG considered by the MAG Nominating Committee, please send your response in the requisite format to the Nominating Committee by the *20th February at 1800 UTC +12 . * Send your applications to:- To: Nominating Committee: nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: "Jacqueline Morris" , "Thomas Lowenhaupt" < toml at communisphere.com>, "shaila mistry" Once the Nominating Committee has made its decision, they will inform me and I will alert the list and these names will be sent to the IGF Secretariat. Kind Regards, Sala [Co-Coordinator] *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On Behalf Of *Jacqueline Morris *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2012 09:01 PM *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org *Subject:* [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG Fellow IGC List Members, The IGC's Nominating Committee (nomcom) has begun its work selecting new members for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). Our work was initiated by a letter from Under-Secretary-General Sha Zukang requesting that we submit the names of potential candidates to the IGF Secretariat by 31 January 2012. (See letter .) We do apologise for the late start, but the year-end holidays did cause us some difficulty in communicating. So we will do our best to get everything sorted in a proper manner in good time. The MAG's role is to assist the Secretary General in convening the Internet Governance Forums . The Forums site provide an interactive, collaborative space where all stakeholders can air their views and exchange idea. The MAG comprises 56 Members from governments, the private sector and civil society, including representatives from the academic and technical communities. It holds meetings three times a year at the Palais des Nations in Geneva and is preceded by open consultations meetings. A list of current MAG members is found athttp://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010. *Request For Nominations* Please submit nominations – including self-nominations – from which we will select those to be advanced as IGC's recommendations for MAG membership. The recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and be in broad alignment with positions both stated in our charter . All members of MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with not only their respective stakeholder groups, but also a wide range of other connections, such as region, gender, and their local civil society. Current MAG members are encouraged to re-apply, but in the interests of diversity, we would like to limit to those who have already served 2 consecutive terms. · In nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for his/her candidature. · Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with some clarity the activities and / or positions taken by the person in the IG and information society arena. · The person should be informed that the details submitted may be published even if the nomination is unsuccessful. · Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG. · Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how they carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing IGC’s positions as well as the larger CS positions. We would also like to hear what they have contributed, what they intend to contribute and why they want to continue in the role. Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may also be mentioned. · Nominations should also include an assurance that those selected for the MAG will maintain close engagement with CS constituencies, including and especially the IGC. MAG selectees will be required to keep both CS constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as well as present/ push their positions in the MAG. Nominations must be sent to (Jacqueline Morris or to the list* *) no later than midnight January 20, 2012 UTC. · *It is recommended that nominees be members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past.* Remember, we need your nominations by January 20. Sincerely, Jacqueline A. Morris NomCom Chair Respected NomCom of IGC CS, Please find herewith my EOI (for IGC NOMCOM consideration ) to serve at MAG. ============================================================= *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On Behalf Of *Avri Doria *Sent:* Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:27 AM *To:* IGC *Subject:* [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Announcement by USG Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG Begin forwarded message: *From: *Chengetai Masango *Subject: [igf_members] Announcement by USG Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG* *Date: *21 December 2011 13:37:10 EST *To: *igf Forum Dear All, Please find below an announcement by Under-Secretary-General Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG. The information has been posted on the IGF Website and I kindly ask that you also disseminate the information amongst your respective stakeholder groups. Best regards Chengetai *Announcement* * The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been instrumental in planning the programme of the annual meetings of the IGF. We would like to express our gratitude to all members of MAG, who have donated their time, effort and valuable guidance in ensuring the smooth running of the IGF. In light of the established principles and practices of MAG on the rotation and selection of its members, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), therefore, requests all stakeholder groups –government, private sector, civil society, and technical and academic communities- to submit names of candidates from developed and developing countries, as well as from economies in transition, to be considered to become part of MAG to contribute to the multistakeholder process bringing the perspectives on Internet governance from their respective group for a period of one year. It is recommended that group nominees be members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past.* * Owing to the fact that the renewal process was not done in 2011, it is suggested that two thirds of each group’s membership be renewed in 2012 along the guidelines provided in the table below. Please note that groups can resubmit names of current MAG members’ for re-election.* *Groups* *Current Status* *Number to Renew* *Number to Stay* *Government* 25 16 9 Private Sector 10 6 4 Civil Society 10 6 4 Academic and Technical Communities 10 6 4 Total Number of Members *55* *34* *21* * It would be appreciated if respective groups could submit the names of the potential candidates to the IGF Secretariat by** 31 January 2012 **via email: magrenewal2011 at intgovforum.org using the attached submission template.* *It should be noted that plans are underway to have the next Open Consultation and MAG Meeting take place on 14 - 16 February 2011. In the event that the renewed MAG is not on board by then, the current MAG will convene at this time and the renewed MAG will convene in May. * *Accordingly to the established principles and practices,* *(i) Members of MAG are selected to achieve balance among all stakeholder groups, representing all regions and attaining gender equality; (ii) All MAG members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; (iii) The main task of MAG is to provide advice on the programme and main themes of the next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum; (iv) MAG members are expected to attend two to three MAG meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, in addition to the annual IGF meeting, as well as to participate actively in the preparatory process throughout the year through continuous engagement in the online multilateral dialogue among MAG members in between such meetings. (v) MAG meetings are open to Intergovernmental organizations to participate. Thank you and I look forward to the continuous success of the Internet Governance Forum.* * * * (Signed) * * Sha Zukang* * Under-Secretary-General* * **Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)* * * *Submission Template:* Title: Surname: First name: Other names: Job Title(s) Organization(s): City of Residence: Country of Residence: Nationality: Stakeholder Group: Contact Email: Contact Phone: Brief relevant biography of *not more* than 300 words ) Name put forward by: Representing: Contact email : Telephone: * * _______________________________________________ igf_members mailing list igf_members at intgovforum.org http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org **** -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Submission_Template_MAG_renewal - Imran.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 68084 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: unknown sender Subject: no subject Date: no date Size: 39 URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 17 14:10:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:10:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Open consultation In-Reply-To: References: <28072960.55617.1329475966064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h21> <1329481358.69875.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear All, These are excellent musings. If a few of you could work together to consolidate this into a paper and send to the list for comments. Better yet, utilise the etherpad on the IGC website, that would be fantastic. Izumi can then take it up. Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with the general call for funding support for physical presence > at these meetings, but I would like to consider that separately > > I think we have to try to win for Remote Participation the attention and > priority that it deserves. I rather like Imran's proposal B (see below) - > what do people think about proposing that a percentage of the meetings be > set up as RP only? (maybe 50%???) I dislike the level playing field > metaphor, but that would certainly level things A LOT. Of course there are > many other things that need to be thought through carefully - like the time > zone question - but I don't think that presents an insurmountable > difficulty. > > An important 'other thing' is the point made earlier this week by Avri > about bandwidth and reliable connectivity - those who have and those who > don't. I've put it by itself because it is probably the most important of > all in thinking about an RP only meeting. > > What do other people think? > > Deirdre > > On 17 February 2012 08:22, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> .... >> >> B: If the IGF itself can not manage funds for its own MAG, why not all >> the meetings goes Online with some Remote Partcipation through >> Comprehensive Remote Meeting Application Tool. >> .... >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah**** >> [from IGFPAK] >> >> *From:* Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin SCHOMBE < >> b.schombe at gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, 17 February 2012, 15:52 >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Open consultation >> >> Dear Baudoin and all >> >> Multistakeholderism is just an empty shell if large parts of CS cannot be >> able to attend official "open" events where decisions or even >> recommendations are made. Most, if not all, of these parts of CS orgs are >> those from DCs, and the main, if not unique, point there is lack of funding. >> >> During the open (WSIS Forum 2012) preparatory meeting held in Geneva on >> last November, EUROLINC, through the voice of its president Louis Pouzin, >> made en official statement on this very point that suggested a financial >> contribution from ICANN for this specific -Internet related- activity. >> >> Here is the link to this statement : >> http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article77 >> >> I wonder why nobody on the list mentions this important suggestion (i.a. >> APC was present at this meeting). >> >> Imho, the proposal of EUROLONK is serious and documented. Therefore I'd >> encourage CS involved in the IG process -the Caucus on IG in particular- to >> strongly supports it. >> >> Best >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> CSDPTT France >> >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 16/02/12 02:09 >> > De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE" >> > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Deirdre Williams" >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : Re: [governance] Open consultation >> > >> > Hello Williams, >> > >> > I acquired your point of view because in fact a good communication in >> a country like within a community is one of the prime factors in all >> human relationships. The concerns raised last time this is not just the politicians, >> scientists, technicians but different social groups represented by the >> various entities of civil society must also be involved in discussions. With >> this in mind, respecting building on the principle of multistakeholderism >> , we thought our exchanges organized locally by relying on academic >> institutions, private sector, ICT technicians, international agencies, subregional >> and regional active instiutions in the country with civil society >> entities that represent the users, ie consumers of ICT. >> > Institutions designated by combining academic, we have 80% chance to set >> up hub to allow people of the DRC to participate remotely, each as >> possible, in discussions at local, sub regional, regional and >> international levels. >> > >> > This process requires very good planning and that's what we have >> already begun. >> > >> > The language aspect is also in the privileged position because in this >> world of knowledge said, the language of communication has its very high >> up. >> > The national IGF is an indispensable support and essential for IGF subregional, >> regional and international levels. >> > >> > Nothing durable can be designed if the nationals IGF are not >> considered base in all these approaches. >> > >> > It is for this reason that even the level of funding, the >> participation of active and useful really is becoming more problematic in >> developing countries. We must think about it. >> > We do not need the extras. Official delegations present but physically >> absent in the debates or without any relevant contributions must also be >> raised even if it is already always use the emblematic issue of " >> sovereignty". >> > >> > It should also assess the active participation of official delegations. >> > >> > In short we need to talk and not exclude us. >> > >> > >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >> > >> > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 >> > email : b.schombe at gmail.com >> > skype : b.schombe >> > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >> > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2012/2/14 Deirdre Williams >> > >> >> I should have sent this to the list yesterday. >> Sorry it's so long. >> Deirdre >> >> > >> Comments from me and on submissions made by others: >> There appears to be a need to change perspective. There has been a shift >> so that now development is not only an issue between countries – north and >> south – but can also be a stratification issue within countries – a rich >> developed top layer and a poor underdeveloped lower layer both in the north >> and in the south. This needs to be recognised. >> >> Remote participation (RP) needs an improved status. This is both a >> technology issue and a recognition issue. The technology must make it >> possible, and the recognition should as far as possible give it equal >> status. There also need to be excellent remote participation moderators to >> act as interface at meetings. And the issue of linguistic inclusion also >> needs to be addressed with the possibility of several moderators covering >> several different languages. I know this is a lot to ask for but equality >> is not just an Anglophone quality. Perhaps initially willing face to face >> participants could be ‘conscripted’ to provide inclusion in their various >> languages. >> >> ISOC >> >> Remote participation >> The growth in the number of remote hubs and the increase of remote >> participants that >> went with remote hubs is a basis to build on to overcome the challenge >> and cost >> of travel to attend meetings. – agree 100% >> >> National Regional IGFs >> There is a need to enhance the exchange of reports between these two >> interfaces to >> continue and grow going forward. – definitely – perhaps a mechanism to do >> this could be set up – or encouraged and improved? >> >> Funding >> This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of >> value to its participants. – I have grave concerns where value is always >> equated with money. >> >> we view the Internet as an enabler for a wide range of human rights, such >> as the right to freedom of expression and opinion and access to information >> and knowledge as well as the right to association - agree >> >> filtering be part of the main agenda of the 2012 IGF. DNS filtering is >> increasingly used by governments to combat allegedly illegal online >> activities, and this technical measure raises strong concerns, not only >> with regard to the underlying Internet architecture, but also with regard >> to due legal process and human rights, while not solving the problems at >> their source. – this is certainly an issue, but I also find John Carr’s >> arguments re blocking in the context of child pornography very convincing. >> How to reconcile the unreconcilable? >> >> APC >> In Nairobi, a concrete proposal to create a global internet governance >> body was put on the >> table by governments from developing countries (the IBSA proposal) , >> which resulted in >> exactly the kind of intense and diverse debate that the IGF was created >> for. APC applauds this kind of active agenda-setting of developing >> countries as a positive step to counteract exclusion and the predominance >> of developed country agendas as the typical starting points for discussion. >> However as we see it the question about the best way to discuss >> development in relation to internet governance remains unanswered – this is >> what triggered my first comment (see above) >> (Change the perspective – not so much countries, more social strata) >> >> The need for clearly-defined rules within which to operate, and an >> appropriate level of >> transparency was also highlighted - yes >> >> if data discrimination for mobile internet is a technical necessity, then >> policy-makers must define and clearly outline the principles for governing >> such practices. – yes, and there should be general harmonisation of policy >> as much as possible. >> >> However, high prices remain a problem. Electricity is still widely >> unavailable and mobile phones are often prohibitively expensive for the >> poorest in society, and prices for mobile subscriptions are artificially >> high due to licensing fees and competition issues. There is an urgent need >> for these critical barriers to universal mobile internet to be addressed >> through communications policy and strategy – yes. At least in Saint Lucia >> there is a government tax of 15% on mobile services – a very healthy >> revenue generator. >> >> the issue of conflict minerals needs to be on the agenda for the next >> IGF. Policy-makers must establish clear guidelines and legislation that >> address issues of traceability, accountability and responsibility in the >> mineral procurement chain. – this also needs greater public awareness. Can >> this be taken together with the issue of ICT waste and recycling? >> >> internet intermediary liability, the impact of restrictions on freedom of >> expression and association, and responding to violence against women >> online. - yes >> >> freedom of association online needs to be assigned the same level of >> importance as freedom of expression has in IGF debates. Indeed the two are >> inextricably linked and interdependent. - YES >> >> Balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge -YES >> >> Disparities in access between rich and poor, urban and rural areas serve >> to exacerbate existing social inequalities. – see my first point above >> >> human rights be the main theme of IGF in 2012 – good idea >> >> internet access as a human right, freedom of expression and freedom of >> association. >> Human rights topics which became visible for the first time at the IGF >> included: >> • a human rights approach to mobile >> • remedies for internet rights violations >> • human rights and corporate responsibility >> • the rights of disabled people and young people. >> >> (who speaks for whom? Profile of mag; consider the person or consider >> the ideas; do outward and visible signs automatically contain the inferred >> inward and spiritual grace? In other words how to balance the individual >> profile of the representative with the broader profile of the constituency >> represented) >> >> Human rights is the framework with which we judge the merits of ICT >> policy. To us internet governance has to assume a rights-based framework. >> Business and technical decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they must be >> informed and measured by respect for the rights and wellbeing of the people >> who will be using technology >> We need more cross-pollination between business, law enforcement, civil >> society and the >> technical communities. Rather than talking about each other, we should >> be speaking to each other – YES AND YES AND YES >> >> NRO >> Remote Participation was improved in 2011 compared to 2010, but there is >> still much to be >> done to improve this important tool for strengthening accessibility. – >> see above >> • Continue to encourage Regional Hubs and support greater direct >> participation between them >> and the IGF sessions in order to allow a bidirectional flow of >> discussions – see above >> >> Build a link between Regional IG discussions and the MAG for feedback and >> information >> Sharing – see above >> >> >> >> > >> -- >> > “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 >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 17 17:35:34 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:35:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG [Message from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F3ED636.10604@cafonso.ca> Hi Valeria, since it seems your message with APC's indications never made it to the NomCom (despite you having sent it on Jan.30), I think it is the case of submitting it again -- who knows, maybe it will get there this time! :) frt rgds --c.a. On 02/17/2012 04:42 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > For those who would wish to have their candidatures or nominees for MAG > considered by the MAG Nominating Committee, please send your response in > the requisite format to the Nominating Committee by the *20th February at > 1800 UTC +12 . * > > Send your applications to:- > > To: Nominating Committee: nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: "Jacqueline Morris" , "Thomas Lowenhaupt" < > toml at communisphere.com>, "shaila mistry" > > Once the Nominating Committee has made its decision, they will inform me > and I will alert the list and these names will be sent to the IGF > Secretariat. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > [Co-Coordinator] > > *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On > Behalf Of *Jacqueline Morris > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2012 09:01 PM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG > > Fellow IGC List Members, > > The IGC's Nominating Committee (nomcom) has begun its work selecting new > members for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). Our work was > initiated by a letter from Under-Secretary-General Sha Zukang > requesting that we submit the names of potential candidates to the IGF > Secretariat by 31 January 2012. (See > letter > .) > > We do apologise for the late start, but the year-end holidays did cause us > some difficulty in communicating. So we will do our best to get everything > sorted in a proper manner in good time. > > The MAG's role is to assist the Secretary General in convening the Internet > Governance Forums . > The Forums site provide an interactive, collaborative space where all > stakeholders can air their views and exchange idea. > > The MAG comprises 56 Members from governments, the private sector and civil > society, including representatives from the academic and technical > communities. It holds meetings three times a year at the Palais des Nations > in Geneva and is preceded by open consultations meetings. A list of current > MAG members is found athttp://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010. > > *Request For Nominations* > > Please submit nominations – including self-nominations – from which we will > select those to be advanced as IGC's recommendations for MAG membership. > The recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. However, they should > have a civil society identity, and be in broad alignment with positions > both stated in our charter . > > All members of MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to > have extensive linkages with not only their respective stakeholder groups, > but also a wide range of other connections, such as region, gender, and > their local civil society. > > Current MAG members are encouraged to re-apply, but in the interests of > diversity, we would like to limit to those who have already served 2 > consecutive terms. > · In nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent to > be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for his/her > candidature. > · Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention > with some clarity the activities and / or positions taken by the person in > the IG and information society arena. > · The person should be informed that the details submitted may be > published even if the nomination is unsuccessful. > · Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person > will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG. > · Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how > they carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating > and pushing IGC’s positions as well as the larger CS positions. We would > also like to hear what they have contributed, what they intend to > contribute and why they want to continue in the role. Their level and > manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may > also be mentioned. > · Nominations should also include an assurance that those selected > for the MAG will maintain close engagement with CS constituencies, > including and especially the IGC. MAG selectees will be required to keep > both CS constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and > related matters, as well as present/ push their positions in the MAG. > Nominations must be sent to (Jacqueline > Morris or to > the list* *) no later than midnight January 20, 2012 UTC. > · *It is recommended that nominees be members who have actively > participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past.* > Remember, we need your nominations by January 20. > > Sincerely, > > Jacqueline A. Morris > NomCom Chair > Respected NomCom of IGC CS, > > Please find herewith my EOI (for IGC NOMCOM consideration ) to serve at MAG. > ============================================================= > > > *From:* governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] *On > Behalf Of *Avri Doria > *Sent:* Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:27 AM > *To:* IGC > *Subject:* [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Announcement by USG Mr. Sha > Zukang on the MAG > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > *From: *Chengetai Masango > *Subject: [igf_members] Announcement by USG Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG* > *Date: *21 December 2011 13:37:10 EST > *To: *igf Forum > > Dear All, > > Please find below an announcement by Under-Secretary-General Mr. Sha > Zukang on the MAG. > > The information has been posted on the IGF Website and I kindly ask that > you also disseminate the information amongst your respective stakeholder > groups. > > Best regards > > Chengetai > > *Announcement* > * > The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has > been instrumental in planning the programme of the annual meetings of the > IGF. > > We would like to express our gratitude to all members of MAG, who have > donated their time, effort and valuable guidance in ensuring the smooth > running of the IGF. > > In light of the established principles and practices of MAG on the rotation > and selection of its members, the United Nations Department of Economic and > Social Affairs (DESA), therefore, requests all stakeholder groups > –government, private sector, civil society, and technical and academic > communities- to submit names of candidates from developed and developing > countries, as well as from economies in transition, to be considered to > become part of MAG to contribute to the multistakeholder process > bringing the perspectives on Internet governance from their respective > group for a period of one year. It is recommended that group nominees be > members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in > the past.* > * > Owing to the fact that the renewal process was not done in 2011, it is > suggested that two thirds of each group’s membership be renewed in 2012 > along the guidelines provided in the table below. Please note that groups > can resubmit names of current MAG members’ for re-election.* > > *Groups* > *Current Status* > *Number to Renew* > *Number to Stay* > *Government* > 25 > 16 > 9 > Private Sector > 10 > 6 > 4 > Civil Society > 10 > 6 > 4 > Academic and Technical Communities > 10 > 6 > 4 > Total Number of Members > *55* > *34* > *21* > > * > It would be appreciated if respective groups could submit the names of the > potential candidates to the IGF Secretariat by** 31 January 2012 **via > email: magrenewal2011 at intgovforum.org using the attached submission > template.* > *It should be noted that plans are underway to have the next Open > Consultation and MAG Meeting take place on 14 - 16 February 2011. In the > event that the renewed MAG is not on board by then, the current MAG will > convene at this time and the renewed MAG will convene in May. > * > *Accordingly to the established principles and practices,* > *(i) Members of MAG are selected to achieve balance among all stakeholder > groups, representing all regions and attaining gender equality; > > (ii) All MAG members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to > have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; > > (iii) The main task of MAG is to provide advice on the programme and main > themes of the next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum; > > (iv) MAG members are expected to attend two to three MAG meetings in > Geneva, Switzerland, in addition to the annual IGF meeting, as well as to > participate actively in the preparatory process throughout the year through > continuous engagement in the online multilateral dialogue among MAG members > in between such meetings. > > (v) MAG meetings are open to Intergovernmental organizations to participate. > > Thank you and I look forward to the continuous success of the Internet > Governance Forum.* > * * > * > > (Signed) > * > * > Sha > Zukang* > * > Under-Secretary-General* > * > **Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)* > > * * > > > *Submission Template:* > > Title: > Surname: > First name: > Other names: > Job Title(s) > Organization(s): > City of Residence: > Country of Residence: > Nationality: > Stakeholder Group: > Contact Email: > Contact Phone: > Brief relevant biography of *not more* than 300 words ) > > > > Name put forward by: > > Representing: > > Contact email : > > Telephone: > * * > _______________________________________________ > igf_members mailing list > igf_members at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org > > **** > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Feb 17 18:53:05 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:53:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Open consultation Message-ID: <1329522785.94311.yint-ygo-j2me@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All, It is also a good proposal for utilizing online common tool. The Option B. can be further enhanced; i- As per the pattern of IGF-Remote-Hubs, all of the IGF Meetings may be organized Virtually or at least 50+ percent participation can be arranged through Remote-Hubs at the National, and Regional IGF's Units. ii- IGF may ask to the MAG members Nominating Institutions of (Developed Countries) e.g. Rich Organizations, Governments that they should bear the Cost of one additional participation (in addition to their own Nominee) to participate in IGF's Meetings/Consultations and/ or Workshops. So the candidates who require Travel Support, can be sponsored with in same set-up. Time Zone for Virtual Meeting can also be managed as per the Regional Level meeting, consultations and workshops are arranged and the final statements are presented at the Main/Central meeting point at IGF Sec. ------------------------------On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 12:10 AM PKT Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>These are excellent musings. If a few of you could work together to>consolidate this into a paper and send to the list for comments. Better>yet, utilise the etherpad on the IGC website, that would be fantastic.>>Izumi can then take it up.>>Kind Regards,>Sala>>On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Deirdre Williams <>williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:>>> I agree with the general call for funding support for physical presence>> at these meetings, but I would like to consider that separately>>>> I think we have to try to win for Remote Participation the attention and>> priority that it deserves. I rather like Imran's proposal B (see below) ->> what do people think about proposing that a percentage of the meetings be>> set up as RP only? (maybe 50%???) I dislike the level playing field>> metaphor, but that would certainly level things A LOT. Of course there are>> many other things that need to be thought through carefully - like the time>> zone question - but I don't think that presents an insurmountable>> difficulty.>>>> An important 'other thing' is the point made earlier this week by Avri>> about bandwidth and reliable connectivity - those who have and those who>> don't. I've put it by itself because it is probably the most important of>> all in thinking about an RP only meeting.>>>> What do other people think?>>>> Deirdre>>>> On 17 February 2012 08:22, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>>>> ....>>>> B: If the IGF itself can not manage funds for its own MAG, why not all>> the meetings goes Online with some Remote Partcipation through>> Comprehensive Remote Meeting Application Tool.>> ....>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah****>> [from IGFPAK]>>>> *From:* Jean-Louis FULLSACK >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin SCHOMBE <>> b.schombe at gmail.com>>> *Sent:* Friday, 17 February 2012, 15:52>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Open consultation>>>> Dear Baudoin and all>>>> Multistakeholderism is just an empty shell if large parts of CS cannot be>> able to attend official "open" events where decisions or even>> recommendations are made. Most, if not all, of these parts of CS orgs are>> those from DCs, and the main, if not unique, point there is lack of funding.>>>> During the open (WSIS Forum 2012) preparatory meeting held in Geneva on>> last November, EUROLINC, through the voice of its president Louis Pouzin,>> made en official statement on this very point that suggested a financial>> contribution from ICANN for this specific -Internet related- activity.>>>> Here is the link to this statement :>> http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article77>>>> I wonder why nobody on the list mentions this important suggestion (i.a.>> APC was present at this meeting).>>>> Imho, the proposal of EUROLONK is serious and documented. Therefore I'd>> encourage CS involved in the IG process -the Caucus on IG in particular- to>> strongly supports it.>>>> Best>>>> Jean-Louis Fullsack>> CSDPTT France>>>>>>>>>>>> > Message du 16/02/12 02:09>> > De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE">> > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Deirdre Williams">> > Copie à :>> > Objet : Re: [governance] Open consultation>> >>> > Hello Williams,>> >>> > I acquired your point of view because in fact a good communication in>> a country like within a community is one of the prime factors in all>> human relationships. The concerns raised last time this is not just the politicians,>> scientists, technicians but different social groups represented by the>> various entities of civil society must also be involved in discussions. With>> this in mind, respecting building on the principle of multistakeholderism>> , we thought our exchanges organized locally by relying on academic>> institutions, private sector, ICT technicians, international agencies, subregional>> and regional active instiutions in the country with civil society>> entities that represent the users, ie consumers of ICT.>> > Institutions designated by combining academic, we have 80% chance to set>> up hub to allow people of the DRC to participate remotely, each as>> possible, in discussions at local, sub regional, regional and>> international levels.>> >>> > This process requires very good planning and that's what we have>> already begun.>> >>> > The language aspect is also in the privileged position because in this>> world of knowledge said, the language of communication has its very high>> up.>> > The national IGF is an indispensable support and essential for IGF subregional,>> regional and international levels.>> >>> > Nothing durable can be designed if the nationals IGF are not>> considered base in all these approaches.>> >>> > It is for this reason that even the level of funding, the>> participation of active and useful really is becoming more problematic in>> developing countries. We must think about it.>> > We do not need the extras. Official delegations present but physically>> absent in the debates or without any relevant contributions must also be>> raised even if it is already always use the emblematic issue of ">> sovereignty".>> >>> > It should also assess the active participation of official delegations.>> >>> > In short we need to talk and not exclude us.>> >>> >>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN>> >>> > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491>> > email : b.schombe at gmail.com>> > skype : b.schombe>> > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr>> > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2012/2/14 Deirdre Williams >> >>>>> I should have sent this to the list yesterday.>> Sorry it's so long.>> Deirdre>>>> >>> Comments from me and on submissions made by others:>> There appears to be a need to change perspective. There has been a shift>> so that now development is not only an issue between countries – north and>> south – but can also be a stratification issue within countries – a rich>> developed top layer and a poor underdeveloped lower layer both in the north>> and in the south. This needs to be recognised.>>>> Remote participation (RP) needs an improved status. This is both a>> technology issue and a recognition issue. The technology must make it>> possible, and the recognition should as far as possible give it equal>> status. There also need to be excellent remote participation moderators to>> act as interface at meetings. And the issue of linguistic inclusion also>> needs to be addressed with the possibility of several moderators covering>> several different languages. I know this is a lot to ask for but equality>> is not just an Anglophone quality. Perhaps initially willing face to face>> participants could be ‘conscripted’ to provide inclusion in their various>> languages.>>>> ISOC>>>> Remote participation>> The growth in the number of remote hubs and the increase of remote>> participants that>> went with remote hubs is a basis to build on to overcome the challenge>> and cost>> of travel to attend meetings. – agree 100%>>>> National Regional IGFs>> There is a need to enhance the exchange of reports between these two>> interfaces to>> continue and grow going forward. – definitely – perhaps a mechanism to do>> this could be set up – or encouraged and improved?>>>> Funding>> This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is of>> value to its participants. – I have grave concerns where value is always>> equated with money.>>>> we view the Internet as an enabler for a wide range of human rights, such>> as the right to freedom of expression and opinion and access to information>> and knowledge as well as the right to association - agree>>>> filtering be part of the main agenda of the 2012 IGF. DNS filtering is>> increasingly used by governments to combat allegedly illegal online>> activities, and this technical measure raises strong concerns, not only>> with regard to the underlying Internet architecture, but also with regard>> to due legal process and human rights, while not solving the problems at>> their source. – this is certainly an issue, but I also find John Carr’s>> arguments re blocking in the context of child pornography very convincing.>> How to reconcile the unreconcilable?>>>> APC>> In Nairobi, a concrete proposal to create a global internet governance>> body was put on the>> table by governments from developing countries (the IBSA proposal) ,>> which resulted in>> exactly the kind of intense and diverse debate that the IGF was created>> for. APC applauds this kind of active agenda-setting of developing>> countries as a positive step to counteract exclusion and the predominance>> of developed country agendas as the typical starting points for discussion.>> However as we see it the question about the best way to discuss>> development in relation to internet governance remains unanswered – this is>> what triggered my first comment (see above)>> (Change the perspective – not so much countries, more social strata)>>>> The need for clearly-defined rules within which to operate, and an>> appropriate level of>> transparency was also highlighted - yes>>>> if data discrimination for mobile internet is a technical necessity, then>> policy-makers must define and clearly outline the principles for governing>> such practices. – yes, and there should be general harmonisation of policy>> as much as possible.>>>> However, high prices remain a problem. Electricity is still widely>> unavailable and mobile phones are often prohibitively expensive for the>> poorest in society, and prices for mobile subscriptions are artificially>> high due to licensing fees and competition issues. There is an urgent need>> for these critical barriers to universal mobile internet to be addressed>> through communications policy and strategy – yes. At least in Saint Lucia>> there is a government tax of 15% on mobile services – a very healthy>> revenue generator.>>>> the issue of conflict minerals needs to be on the agenda for the next>> IGF. Policy-makers must establish clear guidelines and legislation that>> address issues of traceability, accountability and responsibility in the>> mineral procurement chain. – this also needs greater public awareness. Can>> this be taken together with the issue of ICT waste and recycling?>>>> internet intermediary liability, the impact of restrictions on freedom of>> expression and association, and responding to violence against women>> online. - yes>>>> freedom of association online needs to be assigned the same level of>> importance as freedom of expression has in IGF debates. Indeed the two are>> inextricably linked and interdependent. - YES>>>> Balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge -YES>>>> Disparities in access between rich and poor, urban and rural areas serve>> to exacerbate existing social inequalities. – see my first point above>>>> human rights be the main theme of IGF in 2012 – good idea>>>> internet access as a human right, freedom of expression and freedom of>> association.>> Human rights topics which became visible for the first time at the IGF>> included:>> • a human rights approach to mobile>> • remedies for internet rights violations>> • human rights and corporate responsibility>> • the rights of disabled people and young people.>>>> (who speaks for whom? Profile of mag; consider the person or consider>> the ideas; do outward and visible signs automatically contain the inferred>> inward and spiritual grace? In other words how to balance the individual>> profile of the representative with the broader profile of the constituency>> represented)>>>> Human rights is the framework with which we judge the merits of ICT>> policy. To us internet governance has to assume a rights-based framework.>> Business and technical decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they must be>> informed and measured by respect for the rights and wellbeing of the people>> who will be using technology>> We need more cross-pollination between business, law enforcement, civil>> society and the>> technical communities. Rather than talking about each other, we should>> be speaking to each other – YES AND YES AND YES>>>> NRO>> Remote Participation was improved in 2011 compared to 2010, but there is>> still much to be>> done to improve this important tool for strengthening accessibility. –>> see above>> • Continue to encourage Regional Hubs and support greater direct>> participation between them>> and the IGF sessions in order to allow a bidirectional flow of>> discussions – see above>>>> Build a link between Regional IG discussions and the MAG for feedback and>> information>> Sharing – see above>>>>>>>> >>> -->> > “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>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> To be removed from the list, visit:>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance>> To 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>>>>>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Feb 17 19:27:12 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:27:12 +1100 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG [Message from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Can someone explain this? Is this a call for nominations in addition to those already submitted? Ian From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:42:31 +1200 To: Cc: , shaila mistry , Thomas Lowenhaupt , Jacqueline Morris Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG [Message from Co-Coordinator] >  Dear All, > > For those who would wish to have their candidatures or nominees for MAG > considered by the MAG Nominating Committee, please send your response in the > requisite format to the Nominating Committee by the 20th February at 1800 UTC > +12 . > > Send your applications to:- > > To:     Nominating Committee: nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc:  "Jacqueline Morris" , "Thomas Lowenhaupt" > , "shaila mistry" > > Once the Nominating Committee has made its decision, they will inform me and I > will alert the list and these names will be sent to the IGF Secretariat. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > [Co-Coordinator] > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Jacqueline Morris > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 09:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG >   > Fellow IGC List Members, > > The IGC's Nominating Committee (nomcom) has begun its work selecting new > members for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). Our work was initiated > by a letter from Under-Secretary-General Sha Zukang requesting that we submit > the names of potential candidates to the IGF Secretariat by 31 January > 2012. (See letter > .) >   > We do apologise for the late start, but the year-end holidays did cause us > some difficulty in communicating. So we will do our best to get everything > sorted in a proper manner in good time. > > The MAG's role is to assist the Secretary General in convening the Internet > Governance Forums . The > Forums site provide an interactive, collaborative space where all stakeholders > can air their views and exchange idea. > > The MAG comprises 56 Members from governments, the private sector and civil > society, including representatives from the academic and technical > communities. It holds meetings three times a year at the Palais des Nations in > Geneva and is preceded by open consultations meetings. A list of current MAG > members is found athttp://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010. > > Request For Nominations > > Please submit nominations ­ including self-nominations ­ from which we will > select those to be advanced as IGC's recommendations for MAG membership. The > recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. However, they should have a > civil society identity, and be in broad alignment with positions both stated > in our charter . > > All members of MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have > extensive linkages with not only their respective stakeholder groups, but also > a wide range of other connections, such as region, gender, and their local > civil society.  > > Current MAG members are encouraged to re-apply, but in the interests of > diversity, we would like to limit to those who have already served 2 > consecutive terms. > ·         In nominating someone else please obtain the person¹s consent to be > on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC¹s endorsement for his/her candidature. > ·         Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with > some clarity the activities and / or positions taken by the person in the IG > and information society arena.  > ·         The person should be informed that the details submitted may be > published even if the nomination is unsuccessful.  > ·         Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person > will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG.  > ·         Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how > they carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and > pushing IGC¹s positions as well as the larger CS positions. We would also like > to hear what they have contributed, what they intend to contribute and why > they want to continue in the role. Their level and manner of engagement with > the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may also be mentioned.  > ·         Nominations should also include an assurance that those selected for > the MAG will maintain close engagement with CS constituencies, including and > especially the IGC. MAG selectees will be required to keep both CS > constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related > matters, as well as present/ push their positions in the MAG. Nominations must > be sent to (Jacqueline Morris >  or to the list ) no later than midnight > January 20, 2012 UTC. > ·         It is recommended that nominees be members who have actively > participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past. > Remember, we need your nominations by January 20. > > Sincerely, > > Jacqueline A. Morris > NomCom Chair > Respected NomCom of IGC CS, >   > Please find herewith my EOI (for IGC NOMCOM consideration ) to serve at MAG. > ============================================================= > >   > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:27 AM > To: IGC > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Announcement by USG Mr. Sha Zukang on > the MAG >   >   >   > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Chengetai Masango > Subject: [igf_members] Announcement by USG Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG > Date: 21 December 2011 13:37:10 EST > To: igf Forum >   > Dear All, >   > Please find below an announcement by Under-Secretary-General Mr. Sha Zukang on > the MAG. >   > The information has been posted on the IGF Website and I kindly ask that you > also disseminate the information amongst your respective stakeholder groups. >   > Best regards  >   > Chengetai  >   > Announcement >                                                                  > The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been > instrumental in planning the programme of the annual meetings of the IGF. > > We would like to express our gratitude to all members of MAG, who have donated > their time, effort and valuable guidance in ensuring the smooth running of the > IGF. > > In light of the established principles and practices of MAG on the rotation > and selection of its members, the United Nations Department of Economic and > Social Affairs (DESA), therefore, requests all stakeholder groups ­government, > private sector, civil society, and technical and academic communities- to > submit names of candidates from developed and developing countries, as well as > from economies in transition,  to be considered to become part of MAG to > contribute to the multistakeholder process bringing  the perspectives on > Internet governance from their respective group for a period of one year. It > is recommended that group nominees be members who have actively participated > in IGF meetings and activities in the past. > > Owing to the fact that the renewal process was not done in 2011, it is > suggested that two thirds of each group¹s membership be renewed in 2012 along > the guidelines provided in the table below. Please note that groups can > resubmit names of current MAG members¹ for re-election. >   > Groups > Current Status > Number to Renew > Number to Stay > Government > 25 > 16 > 9 > Private Sector > 10 > 6 > 4 > Civil Society > 10 > 6 > 4 > Academic and Technical Communities > 10 > 6 > 4 > Total Number of Members  > 55 > 34 > 21 >   > > It would be appreciated if respective groups could submit the names of the > potential candidates to the IGF Secretariat by  31 January 2012 via > email: magrenewal2011 at intgovforum.org  using the attached submission template. > It should be noted that plans are underway to have the next Open Consultation > and MAG Meeting take place on 14 - 16 February 2011. In the event that the > renewed MAG is not on board by then, the current MAG will convene at this time > and the renewed MAG will convene in May. > Accordingly to the established principles and practices, > (i) Members of MAG are selected to achieve balance among all stakeholder > groups, representing all regions and attaining gender equality;  > > (ii) All MAG members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to > have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups;  > > (iii) The main task of MAG is to provide advice on the programme and main > themes of the next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum;  > > (iv) MAG members are expected to attend two to three MAG meetings in Geneva, > Switzerland, in addition to the annual IGF meeting, as well as to participate > actively in the preparatory process throughout the year through continuous > engagement in the online multilateral dialogue among MAG members in between > such meetings. > > (v) MAG meetings are open to Intergovernmental organizations to participate. > > Thank you and I look forward to the continuous success of the Internet > Governance Forum. >   >                                                                                >     (Signed) >                                                                                >     Sha Zukang >                                                                               >     Under-Secretary-General >                                                                                >                                      Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA) >   >                          >   >   > Submission Template: >   > Title: > Surname: > First name: > Other names: > Job Title(s) > Organization(s): > City of Residence: > Country of Residence: > Nationality: > Stakeholder Group: > Contact Email: > Contact Phone: > Brief relevant biography of not more than 300 words ) >   >   >   > Name put forward by: >   > Representing: >   > Contact email : >   > Telephone: >   > _______________________________________________ > igf_members mailing list > igf_members at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org >   > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 >   > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 17 20:38:48 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:38:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation Message-ID: Following the discussions of the last few days I have taken the liberty of putting together the contributions into a single document. I have not included Imran's option B (to make some consultations/MAG meetings remote only and which I like very much myself) because no one else has said anything about it yet I have also not included in the text, although it is still there below the text, a large part of Sala's contribution which seems to me to deal with direct suggestions for improving remote participation at the IGF itself, and therefore (again my opinion only) would perhaps have a greater effect in a second document of practical suggestions. *Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus (IGC) * *Statement on remote participation* We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting this month - February 2012 - which was opened to observers. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live transcript. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one function. We strongly urge MAG and IGF secretariats and ourselves to consider the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work together to bring them about: l Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants l Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation l Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible to interact between the meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). l Establish a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. l Provide as much interactivity as possible. l Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as real-time transcription and video streaming - of coverage of the meeting l Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive presentations access through RP. (This needs clarification) l Create a select task force or Working Group created that has representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation Because only limited funds are available for direct participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. [This text was originally proposed by Izumi and is close to the wording of his intervention at the end of the MAG meeting. Subsequent contributions from other people have also been included.] *This is the rest of Sala’s suggestion. Two points are included above.* We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to make improved remote participation a reality. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these countries could access the IGF. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised through setting up parallel screens that enable people to chat and stream in to the sessions where those who are at the meeting can read these chats or feeds in text form and also see the various hubs who are participating. These improvements transcend having the appropriate technical solutions and should also include the following:- · Outreach; · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; · Coordinating with people on the ground 10 months before the IGF in a series of strategic roll out; · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can be better involved in the remote hubs etc Deirdre -- “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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 21:06:41 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:06:41 +0700 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Deirdre, I think that there is an implicit assumption in what you have written that if only the technical glitches could be corrected then RP would be "equivalent" to In person participation... I think there are two problems with this. The first is that in practice and from my experience except in extremely limited situations where you are working with highly experienced people at both ends of the communication, have access to very significant technical resources, and a meeting structure specifically designed to accommodate effective RP can this even be approximated. In the real world of IG the likelihood of these conditions being in place (ever) is highly remote. The second issue is that even when all of the above conditions are in place unless the decision making process in the meeting has been redesigned specifically to accommodate remote participation recognizing all of its practical limitations those participating remotely will always be at a disadvantage... This isn't to say that RP is not worth pursuing it most certainly is, but it is to say that those pursuing it should have no illusions about what they are asking for. (BTW, I like the suggestion of shifting in part or at key points to full RP as it puts everyone at a similar disadvantage or equalizes the participation opportunities for all but I realize that may not be realistic in this instance for a variety of reasons.) If the intention is to ensure an opportunity for effective participation by those without the means for f2f communication then that will have to be specifically designed for and that means I think not focusing specifically on the RP element (only) but rather focusing on the decision making process as for example working through how to have an effective "designated speaker" or representative participation process where those not able to directly participate are able to act through representatives or surrogates as though they were directly participating and with a weight similar to those who are directly participating. Best, Mike On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Following the discussions of the last few days I have taken the liberty of > putting together the contributions into a single document. I have not > included Imran's option B  (to make some consultations/MAG meetings remote > only and which I like very much myself) because no one else has said > anything about it yet > > I have also not included in the text, although it is still there below the > text, a large part of Sala's contribution which seems to me to deal with > direct suggestions for improving remote participation at the IGF itself, and > therefore (again my opinion only) would perhaps have a greater effect in a > second document of practical suggestions. > > Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus (IGC) > > Statement on remote participation > > > > We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of > organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate the effort > to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, the > Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting this > month - February 2012 - which was opened to observers. > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team > from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was > originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola. > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with the > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, (the > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. Also MAG members > trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators, partly > because the moderators were serving more than one function. > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF secretariats and ourselves to consider the > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work > together to bring them about: > > l      Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants > > l      Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation > > l      Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators > (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible to > interact between the meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the > Chair and the remote participants). > > l      Establish a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for  those physically present > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > l      Provide as much interactivity as possible. > > l      Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as > real-time transcription and video streaming - of coverage of the meeting > > l      Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP.  (This needs clarification) > > l      Create a select task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that > is dedicated to seeing  improvements of Remote Participation > > Because only limited funds are available for direct participation, this > issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all constituencies who > are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish to do so from a > remote location. > > > [This text was originally proposed by Izumi and is close to the wording of > his intervention at the end of the MAG meeting. Subsequent contributions > from other people have also been included.] > > > > This is the rest of Sala’s suggestion. Two points are included above. > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to > make improved remote participation a reality. > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > countries could access the IGF. However there is room to improve processes > and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised through > setting up parallel screens that enable people to chat and stream in to the > sessions where those who are at the meeting can read these chats or feeds in > text form and also see the various hubs who are participating. > > These improvements transcend having the appropriate technical solutions and > should also include the following:- > > ·    Outreach; > > ·    Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > ·    Coordinating with people on the ground 10 months before the IGF in a > series of strategic roll out; > > ·    Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can > be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > > > Deirdre > > > > > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de Fri Feb 17 21:11:52 2012 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:11:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! Message-ID: <00e801ccede2$aecbded0$0c639c70$@hoferichter@freenet.de> For the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow: Learning in a Multi Stakeholder Environment Meissen / Germany, 22-28 July 2012 Do you want to understand the multilayer, multi player mechanisms of Internet Governance? Do you want to know what the political, economic, social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you want to learn what is behind cryptic acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, W3C, IAB, WHOIS, GAC, IGF, WGIG and WSIS? Do want to get more detailed information about technical Internet standards, protocols, codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries and registrars? Are you interested to look deeper into the opportunities and risks of the emerging global Internet Economy? Do you want to become an Internet Governance leader of tomorrow? Than you should apply for the “2012 European Summer School on Internet Governance” (EuroSSIG). The 2012 Summer School offers a unique multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well known experts working directly in the technical community, the market or in policy. It offers unique opportunities for learning in a multi stakeholder environment, which includes also intense and individual interactive communication with faculty members and fellows from all over the world. The faculty is chaired by Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus . Applications will be accepted both from students and individuals working in the private sector, in government or in civil society groups from all over the world. Application criteria are a basic academic degree or relevant practical experiences. The course fee is 1000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the lecture programme: * six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy, * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, * one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory”, * gala dinner in the historic wine restaurant “Vincenz Richter”, * boat trip on the river Elbe * free WiFi access and * all teaching material. There is a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). We can offer students from developing countries an opportunity to apply for the fellowship programme. If you are interested in the European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG), please send applications until 15 April 2012 by using the online application form on the website or contacting directly Sandra Hoferichter the coordinator of the Summer School. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Sat Feb 18 02:43:45 2012 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:43:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! In-Reply-To: <00e801ccede2$aecbded0$0c639c70$@hoferichter@freenet.de> References: <00e801ccede2$aecbded0$0c639c70$@hoferichter@freenet.de> Message-ID: <1329551025.4f3f56b140f5f@gold.itu.ch> Dear Sandra, Thank you for this information. Sandra from which periode the fellowship programme was taken place. I'll always follow ESSIG web site but I did not see it. Thank you Karim, Comoros Quoting sandra hoferichter : > > For the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow: Learning in a Multi > Stakeholder Environment > > > Meissen / Germany, 22-28 July 2012 > > > Do you want to understand the multilayer, multi player mechanisms of > Internet Governance? Do you want to know what the political, economic, > social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you want to > learn what is behind cryptic acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, ccTLD, gTLD, > iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, W3C, IAB, WHOIS, GAC, IGF, WGIG and WSIS? Do want to > get more detailed information about technical Internet standards, > protocols, > codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries and registrars? Are you > interested to look deeper into the opportunities and risks of the emerging > global Internet Economy? Do you want to become an Internet Governance > leader > of tomorrow? > > Than you should apply for the “2012 European Summer School on Internet > Governance” (EuroSSIG). The 2012 Summer School offers a unique > multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The programme is > a > well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with world leading academics > as well as practical presentations from well known experts working directly > in the technical community, the market or in policy. It offers unique > opportunities for learning in a multi stakeholder environment, which > includes also intense and individual interactive communication with faculty > members and fellows from all over the world. The faculty is chaired by > Prof. > Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus . > > Applications will be accepted both from students and individuals working in > the private sector, in government or in civil society groups from all over > the world. Application criteria are a basic academic degree or relevant > practical experiences. > > The course fee is 1000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the lecture > programme: > > * six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy, > * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, > * one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory”, > * gala dinner in the historic wine restaurant “Vincenz Richter”, > * boat trip on the river Elbe > * free WiFi access and > * all teaching material. > > There is a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). We > can > offer students from developing countries an opportunity to apply for the > fellowship programme. > > If you are interested in the European Summer School on Internet Governance > (EuroSSIG), please send applications until 15 April 2012 by using the > y/application-form> online application form on the website or contacting > directly > et%20Governance> Sandra Hoferichter the coordinator of the Summer School. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 06:05:00 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:35:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Mike, De, Sala, Izumi, Imran and others who are engaged in this discussion. Members of civil society and other stakeholders have worked for years towards effective remote and e-participation. Mike seems to reiterate something the IGF Remote Participation Working Group (IGF RPWG) and others have been saying all along: Remote Participation must be institutionalised as part of inclusive policy meetings and processes, specifically designed as a part of the meeting strategy. The tech capability has been proven. There must be a will to implement it in the IGF process. And that will cannot just be words, and volunteer initiatives, it must have a formal institutional foundation. IMHO, two major breakthroughs have taken place in remote participation in the IGF process: Live transcription, (in large part thanks to the work of the Dynamic Coalition for People with Disabilities) and remote hubs (an informal coalition between a significant group of volunteers around the world, the RPWG and the IGF Secretariat, with the support of DiploFoundation and others). But what about real-time engagement in all meetings and the process itself, for off-site stakeholders, as show during the OC/MAG meetings the week of 13 February? Individuals, working groups, volunteers and collaborators have pushed for remote participation. We have tried collaboration, volunteerism, patience, advocacy, workshops at the IGF. The IGF RPWG has published guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles for discussion (see the discussion at http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1 and the draft, pasted at the bottom of this email). Why have we, as civil society and the IGC, been so ineffective at developing and achieving implementation of inclusion and effective remote participation? After several years, why is RP not now an integral part of all IG and IGF policy processes? Why has the IGF (in particular) as a policy process not moved forward with this obvious and basic element of a multistakeholder process--particularly one whose in situ meetings are held in remote-from-the-majority and expensive venues? What can we do about it? I am not willing to accept that it may not be possible at this time. It is impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote participation. If the IGF is to move forward, and not backwards, this must be effectively addressed. Best, Ginger E-participation principles: First draft for consultation This is the first draft of a set of e-participation principles, collaboratively authored during Workshop 67 at the Nairobi, Kenya Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and created using the iEtherPad (ietherpad.com) collaborative drafting site. This draft combines text from many authors who participated in the workshop room, and remotely. The collaborative draft process can be seen at http://diplo.ietherpad.com/ep/pad/view/ro.6Uq9$cCZ/rev.4000 We invite your comments and discussion which we will then incorporate into a second draft. Summarised principles : First draft Inclusiveness  E-participation is a set of resources that allows for increased openness and inclusiveness, particularly in global policy processes.  E-participation platforms should support customisation for local language and context.  E-participation should be multilingual, moving beyond the current focus on English (e.g. transcripts of main sessions).  High and low bandwidth options should be available to improve access to e-participation.  E-participation should include formal and informal channels of participation. . Equality of participation  E-participation is not about technology; it’s about people. Relational participation that provides a social context is important. E-participation is an important part of meetings.  E-participants should be able to register for the IGF or other global meetings like anyone else, and should not be made to feel like second-class participants.  E-participation should facilitate different social media tools and platforms.  Special efforts should be made to facilitate e-participation of countries, communities, and individuals who have limited access to the Internet.  E-participation should include networking and interconnecting hub-to-hub as well as hub-to-meeting.  E-participation should actively offer alternatives for e-presenters and e-panellists, to foster the inclusion of voices that do not have the resources to attend in situ. Scale and stability  E-Participation should be prepared for scale-up in order to facilitate increased e-participation.  The e-participation process should remain open to new ideas and improvements from participants: e-Participation is collaboratively created.  There should be a clear commitment to problem-solving and trouble-shooting, as well as the possibility of e-participation in the development of the e-participation process itself.  The e-participation process should remain flexible and adaptable. Capacity building  Training is essential for e-participants, onsite panel moderators, and onsite remote moderators.  E-participation must recognise and address the need for basic digital skills.  Capacity building is not just technology-oriented – it must also address moderation and facilitation skills and tech support training for hubs, remote participants, and support. Providing platforms  E-participation should foster the creation of inclusive platforms among organisations.  E-participation should be built using open source software to support innovation, creativity, and inclusiveness. A case study: E-participation at the heart of the IGF  E-participation should be as important as in situ meeting participation.  E-participation channels and online communities should be promoted through IGF publicity. On 17 February 2012 21:36, michael gurstein wrote: > Deirdre, > > I think that there is an implicit assumption in what you have written > that if only the technical glitches could be corrected then RP would > be "equivalent" to In person participation... I think there are two > problems with this.  The first is that in practice and from my > experience except in extremely limited situations where you are > working with highly experienced people at both ends of the > communication, have access to very significant technical resources, > and a meeting structure specifically designed to accommodate effective > RP can this even be approximated.  In the real world of IG the > likelihood of these conditions being in place (ever) is highly remote. > > The second issue is that even when all of the above conditions are in > place unless the decision making process in the meeting has been > redesigned specifically to accommodate remote participation > recognizing all of its practical limitations those participating > remotely will always be at a disadvantage... > > This isn't to say that RP is not worth pursuing it most certainly is, > but it is to say that those pursuing it should have no illusions about > what they are asking for. (BTW, I like the suggestion of shifting in > part or at key points to full RP as it puts everyone at a similar > disadvantage or equalizes the participation opportunities for all but > I realize that may not be realistic in this instance for a variety of > reasons.) > > If the intention is to ensure an opportunity for effective > participation by those without the means for f2f communication then > that will have to be specifically designed for and that means I think > not focusing specifically on the RP element (only) but rather focusing > on the decision making process as for example working through how to > have an effective "designated speaker" or representative participation > process where those not able to directly participate are able to act > through representatives or surrogates as though they were directly > participating and with a weight similar to those who are directly > participating. > > Best, > > Mike > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: >> Following the discussions of the last few days I have taken the liberty of >> putting together the contributions into a single document. I have not >> included Imran's option B  (to make some consultations/MAG meetings remote >> only and which I like very much myself) because no one else has said >> anything about it yet >> >> I have also not included in the text, although it is still there below the >> text, a large part of Sala's contribution which seems to me to deal with >> direct suggestions for improving remote participation at the IGF itself, and >> therefore (again my opinion only) would perhaps have a greater effect in a >> second document of practical suggestions. >> >> Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus (IGC) >> >> Statement on remote participation >> >> >> >> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of >> organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate the effort >> to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, the >> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting this >> month - February 2012 - which was opened to observers. >> >> >> >> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team >> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was >> originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola. >> >> >> >> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with the >> system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, (the >> second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively >> excluded because they had no access to live transcript. Also MAG members >> trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators, partly >> because the moderators were serving more than one function. >> >> >> >> We strongly urge MAG and IGF secretariats and ourselves to consider the >> following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work >> together to bring them about: >> >> l      Ensure equal participation between online and offline participants >> >> l      Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its moderation >> >> l      Always assign exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators >> (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible to >> interact between the meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the >> Chair and the remote participants). >> >> l      Establish a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants >> to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for  those physically present >> in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> >> l      Provide as much interactivity as possible. >> >> l      Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as >> real-time transcription and video streaming - of coverage of the meeting >> >> l      Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> presentations access through RP.  (This needs clarification) >> >> l      Create a select task force or Working Group created that has >> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that >> is dedicated to seeing  improvements of Remote Participation >> >> Because only limited funds are available for direct participation, this >> issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all constituencies who >> are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish to do so from a >> remote location. >> >> >> [This text was originally proposed by Izumi and is close to the wording of >> his intervention at the end of the MAG meeting. Subsequent contributions >> from other people have also been included.] >> >> >> >> This is the rest of Sala’s suggestion. Two points are included above. >> >> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to >> make improved remote participation a reality. >> >> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >> countries could access the IGF. However there is room to improve processes >> and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised through >> setting up parallel screens that enable people to chat and stream in to the >> sessions where those who are at the meeting can read these chats or feeds in >> text form and also see the various hubs who are participating. >> >> These improvements transcend having the appropriate technical solutions and >> should also include the following:- >> >> ·    Outreach; >> >> ·    Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >> ·    Coordinating with people on the ground 10 months before the IGF in a >> series of strategic roll out; >> >> ·    Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can >> be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >> >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> “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 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 08:22:10 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:22:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, I haven't read the draft e-participation principles yet but I have read Ginger's message and I thoroughly agree with her. I haven't read the principles because I went to bed last night thinking about this and something swam up while I was asleep that I would like to share. Now I'm going to go off at a tangent to help me explain - a Jovan analogy :-) One of the things that Saint Lucia has taught me is how to 'make do'. This seems to be a peculiarly "southern" skill, belonging to those parts of the world where you shouldn't learn to depend on things. I was a little surprised to find that Kati (in San Francisco) was (temporarily) living in that world too during the MAG meeting. At a meeting recently I was told that the course description I am currently writing for the proposed university college here should demand optimum conditions. I find that so difficult to do after all the years of 'managing somehow'. So I propose that in the south, while we obviously yearn for optimum conditions, we are just so grateful to be able to 'manage somehow'. It's an evolving process which should continue to evolve but I would hate for the modicum of inclusion that has been won to be lost because it isn't perfect. I think that's rather more than 2c worth, and I really hope it makes sense to some of you. Best wishes Deirdre On 18 February 2012 07:05, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks Mike, De, Sala, Izumi, Imran and others who are engaged in this > discussion. > > Members of civil society and other stakeholders have worked for years > towards effective remote and e-participation. Mike seems to reiterate > something the IGF Remote Participation Working Group (IGF RPWG) and > others have been saying all along: Remote Participation must be > institutionalised as part of inclusive policy meetings and processes, > specifically designed as a part of the meeting strategy. The tech > capability has been proven. There must be a will to implement it in > the IGF process. And that will cannot just be words, and volunteer > initiatives, it must have a formal institutional foundation. > > IMHO, two major breakthroughs have taken place in remote participation > in the IGF process: Live transcription, (in large part thanks to the > work of the Dynamic Coalition for People with Disabilities) and remote > hubs (an informal coalition between a significant group of volunteers > around the world, the RPWG and the IGF Secretariat, with the support > of DiploFoundation and others). > > But what about real-time engagement in all meetings and the process > itself, for off-site stakeholders, as show during the OC/MAG meetings > the week of 13 February? Individuals, working groups, volunteers and > collaborators have pushed for remote participation. We have tried > collaboration, volunteerism, patience, advocacy, workshops at the IGF. > The IGF RPWG has published guidelines and recommendations for remote > participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants prepared a draft of > e-participation principles for discussion (see the discussion at > http://discuss.diplomacy.edu/e-participation/?p=1 and the draft, > pasted at the bottom of this email). > > Why have we, as civil society and the IGC, been so ineffective at > developing and achieving implementation of inclusion and effective > remote participation? After several years, why is RP not now an > integral part of all IG and IGF policy processes? > > Why has the IGF (in particular) as a policy process not moved forward > with this obvious and basic element of a multistakeholder > process--particularly one whose in situ meetings are held in > remote-from-the-majority and expensive venues? > > What can we do about it? I am not willing to accept that it may not be > possible at this time. It is impossible to sustain an inclusive global > policy process without effective remote participation. If the IGF is > to move forward, and not backwards, this must be effectively > addressed. > > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > E-participation principles: First draft for consultation > > This is the first draft of a set of e-participation principles, > collaboratively authored during Workshop 67 at the Nairobi, Kenya > Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and created using the iEtherPad > (ietherpad.com) collaborative drafting site. This draft combines text > from many authors who participated in the workshop room, and remotely. > The collaborative draft process can be seen at > http://diplo.ietherpad.com/ep/pad/view/ro.6Uq9$cCZ/rev.4000 > > We invite your comments and discussion which we will then incorporate > into a second draft. > > Summarised principles : First draft > > > Inclusiveness > >  E-participation is a set of resources that allows for increased > openness and inclusiveness, particularly in global policy processes. >  E-participation platforms should support customisation for local > language and context. >  E-participation should be multilingual, moving beyond the current > focus on English (e.g. transcripts of main sessions). >  High and low bandwidth options should be available to improve > access > to e-participation. >  E-participation should include formal and informal channels of > participation. > . > > > Equality of participation > >  E-participation is not about technology; it’s about people. > Relational participation that provides a social context is important. > E-participation is an important part of meetings. >  E-participants should be able to register for the IGF or other > global meetings like anyone else, and should not be made to feel like > second-class participants. >  E-participation should facilitate different social media tools and > platforms. >  Special efforts should be made to facilitate e-participation of > countries, communities, and individuals who have limited access to the > Internet. >  E-participation should include networking and interconnecting > hub-to-hub > as well as hub-to-meeting. >  E-participation should actively offer alternatives for e-presenters > and e-panellists, to foster the inclusion of voices that do not have > the resources to attend in situ. > > > Scale and stability > >  E-Participation should be prepared for scale-up in order to > facilitate increased e-participation. >  The e-participation process should remain open to new ideas and > improvements from participants: e-Participation is collaboratively > created. >  There should be a clear commitment to problem-solving and > trouble-shooting, as well as the possibility of e-participation in the > development of the e-participation process itself. >  The e-participation process should remain flexible and adaptable. > > > Capacity building > >  Training is essential for e-participants, onsite panel moderators, > and onsite remote moderators. >  E-participation must recognise and address the need for basic > digital skills. >  Capacity building is not just technology-oriented – it must also > address moderation and facilitation skills and tech support training > for hubs, remote participants, and support. > > Providing platforms > >  E-participation should foster the creation of inclusive platforms > among organisations. >  E-participation should be built using open source software to > support innovation, creativity, and inclusiveness. > > > > A case study: E-participation at the heart of the IGF > >  E-participation should be as important as in situ meeting > participation. >  E-participation channels and online communities should be promoted > through IGF publicity. > > > > > > > > On 17 February 2012 21:36, michael gurstein wrote: > > Deirdre, > > > > I think that there is an implicit assumption in what you have written > > that if only the technical glitches could be corrected then RP would > > be "equivalent" to In person participation... I think there are two > > problems with this. The first is that in practice and from my > > experience except in extremely limited situations where you are > > working with highly experienced people at both ends of the > > communication, have access to very significant technical resources, > > and a meeting structure specifically designed to accommodate effective > > RP can this even be approximated. In the real world of IG the > > likelihood of these conditions being in place (ever) is highly remote. > > > > The second issue is that even when all of the above conditions are in > > place unless the decision making process in the meeting has been > > redesigned specifically to accommodate remote participation > > recognizing all of its practical limitations those participating > > remotely will always be at a disadvantage... > > > > This isn't to say that RP is not worth pursuing it most certainly is, > > but it is to say that those pursuing it should have no illusions about > > what they are asking for. (BTW, I like the suggestion of shifting in > > part or at key points to full RP as it puts everyone at a similar > > disadvantage or equalizes the participation opportunities for all but > > I realize that may not be realistic in this instance for a variety of > > reasons.) > > > > If the intention is to ensure an opportunity for effective > > participation by those without the means for f2f communication then > > that will have to be specifically designed for and that means I think > > not focusing specifically on the RP element (only) but rather focusing > > on the decision making process as for example working through how to > > have an effective "designated speaker" or representative participation > > process where those not able to directly participate are able to act > > through representatives or surrogates as though they were directly > > participating and with a weight similar to those who are directly > > participating. > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Deirdre Williams > > wrote: > >> Following the discussions of the last few days I have taken the liberty > of > >> putting together the contributions into a single document. I have not > >> included Imran's option B (to make some consultations/MAG meetings > remote > >> only and which I like very much myself) because no one else has said > >> anything about it yet > >> > >> I have also not included in the text, although it is still there below > the > >> text, a large part of Sala's contribution which seems to me to deal with > >> direct suggestions for improving remote participation at the IGF > itself, and > >> therefore (again my opinion only) would perhaps have a greater effect > in a > >> second document of practical suggestions. > >> > >> Internet Governance Civil Society Caucus (IGC) > >> > >> Statement on remote participation > >> > >> > >> > >> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part > of > >> organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate the > effort > >> to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, the > >> Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting > this > >> month - February 2012 - which was opened to observers. > >> > >> > >> > >> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team > >> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > which was > >> originally brought by our colleague Vittorio Bertola. > >> > >> > >> > >> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred > with the > >> system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, > (the > >> second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively > >> excluded because they had no access to live transcript. Also MAG members > >> trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators, > partly > >> because the moderators were serving more than one function. > >> > >> > >> > >> We strongly urge MAG and IGF secretariats and ourselves to consider the > >> following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and > work > >> together to bring them about: > >> > >> l Ensure equal participation between online and offline > participants > >> > >> l Prepare a clear guideline for remote participation and its > moderation > >> > >> l Always assign exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators > >> (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible to > >> interact between the meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, > the > >> Chair and the remote participants). > >> > >> l Establish a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants > >> to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically > present > >> in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > >> > >> l Provide as much interactivity as possible. > >> > >> l Provide plural means – video, voice and text channel, as well as > >> real-time transcription and video streaming - of coverage of the meeting > >> > >> l Enable the meeting and remote participation through interactive > >> presentations access through RP. (This needs clarification) > >> > >> l Create a select task force or Working Group created that has > >> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society > that > >> is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation > >> > >> Because only limited funds are available for direct participation, this > >> issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > constituencies who > >> are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish to do so from > a > >> remote location. > >> > >> > >> [This text was originally proposed by Izumi and is close to the wording > of > >> his intervention at the end of the MAG meeting. Subsequent contributions > >> from other people have also been included.] > >> > >> > >> > >> This is the rest of Sala’s suggestion. Two points are included above. > >> > >> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to > >> make improved remote participation a reality. > >> > >> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > >> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > >> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > >> countries could access the IGF. However there is room to improve > processes > >> and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised > through > >> setting up parallel screens that enable people to chat and stream in to > the > >> sessions where those who are at the meeting can read these chats or > feeds in > >> text form and also see the various hubs who are participating. > >> > >> These improvements transcend having the appropriate technical solutions > and > >> should also include the following:- > >> > >> · Outreach; > >> > >> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > >> > >> · Coordinating with people on the ground 10 months before the IGF in > a > >> series of strategic roll out; > >> > >> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > can > >> be better involved in the remote hubs etc > >> > >> > >> > >> Deirdre > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “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 > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Feb 18 10:13:42 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:13:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 06:35:00 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Ginger Paque writes >Why have we, as civil society and the IGC, been so ineffective at >developing and achieving implementation of inclusion and effective >remote participation? After several years, why is RP not now an >integral part of all IG and IGF policy processes? For the inter-sessional planning meetings, because they are still primarily institutionalised into the Geneva landscape (which for Europeans is at least better than having to go through the same exercise in New York). The only way this can be broken is for such meetings (and indeed similar non-UN meetings, this is not a criticism aimed particularly at DESA) to grind to a halt whenever there's a glitch in the remote participation, and not continue until the remote participation has been fixed. Of course, that results in an extreme waste of the resources of the people who *have* managed to get the funds to travel to the venue, so it's not an easy decision. But until such a rule is applied, then remote participants will always have an inherent second class status, and not just because of the greater difficulty of following and contributing to a meeting from 5,000 miles and 12hrs timezone away. The problem is that the world is largely organised around the idea of representative democracy, and this assume your representatives are able to get to the meetings. I've also got something to say about substitutes, for example in the MAG. I'm not sure it's very common for elected representatives to send substitutes to national Parliaments etc, or in the private sector to appoint a proxy who isn't already invited to the meeting. But in both cases it's entirely possible to arrange for an assistant to follow all the proceedings on mailing lists, and to brief the representative so that the latter's work is restricted to not much more than actually attending the physical meetings. -- 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 sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de Sat Feb 18 10:43:30 2012 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:43:30 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! In-Reply-To: <1329551025.4f3f56b140f5f@gold.itu.ch> References: <00e801ccede2$aecbded0$0c639c70$@hoferichter@freenet.de> <1329551025.4f3f56b140f5f@gold.itu.ch> Message-ID: <004b01ccee54$11120940$33361bc0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> Dear Karim, it will take place from 22-28 July 2012. Best Sandra -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Februar 2012 08:44 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; sandra hoferichter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! Dear Sandra, Thank you for this information. Sandra from which periode the fellowship programme was taken place. I'll always follow ESSIG web site but I did not see it. Thank you Karim, Comoros Quoting sandra hoferichter : > > For the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow: Learning in a Multi > Stakeholder Environment > > > Meissen / Germany, 22-28 July 2012 > > > Do you want to understand the multilayer, multi player mechanisms of > Internet Governance? Do you want to know what the political, economic, > social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you want > to learn what is behind cryptic acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, ccTLD, > gTLD, iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, W3C, IAB, WHOIS, GAC, IGF, WGIG and WSIS? > Do want to get more detailed information about technical Internet > standards, protocols, codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries > and registrars? Are you interested to look deeper into the > opportunities and risks of the emerging global Internet Economy? Do > you want to become an Internet Governance leader of tomorrow? > > Than you should apply for the “2012 European Summer School on Internet > Governance” (EuroSSIG). The 2012 Summer School offers a unique > multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The > programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with > world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well > known experts working directly in the technical community, the market > or in policy. It offers unique opportunities for learning in a multi > stakeholder environment, which includes also intense and individual > interactive communication with faculty members and fellows from all > over the world. The faculty is chaired by Prof. > Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus . > > Applications will be accepted both from students and individuals > working in the private sector, in government or in civil society > groups from all over the world. Application criteria are a basic > academic degree or relevant practical experiences. > > The course fee is 1000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the > lecture > programme: > > * six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy, > * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, > * one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory”, > * gala dinner in the historic wine restaurant “Vincenz Richter”, > * boat trip on the river Elbe > * free WiFi access and > * all teaching material. > > There is a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). > We can offer students from developing countries an opportunity to > apply for the fellowship programme. > > If you are interested in the European Summer School on Internet > Governance (EuroSSIG), please send applications until 15 April 2012 > by using the > plenar y/application-form> online application form on the website or > contacting directly > Intern et%20Governance> Sandra Hoferichter the coordinator of the > Summer School. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 18 11:37:26 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:37:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Open consultation In-Reply-To: References: <28072960.55617.1329475966064.JavaMail.www@wwinf1h21> <1329481358.69875.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Sala and all This is a very good idea. Given the instability of the internet as we know it frequently in Kinshasa, I will not be able to do this job quickly. If anyone can help us to do it? SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/17 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear All, > > These are excellent musings. If a few of you could work together to > consolidate this into a paper and send to the list for comments. Better > yet, utilise the etherpad on the IGC website, that would be fantastic. > > Izumi can then take it up. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree with the general call for funding support for physical presence >> at these meetings, but I would like to consider that separately >> >> I think we have to try to win for Remote Participation the attention and >> priority that it deserves. I rather like Imran's proposal B (see below) - >> what do people think about proposing that a percentage of the meetings be >> set up as RP only? (maybe 50%???) I dislike the level playing field >> metaphor, but that would certainly level things A LOT. Of course there are >> many other things that need to be thought through carefully - like the time >> zone question - but I don't think that presents an insurmountable >> difficulty. >> >> An important 'other thing' is the point made earlier this week by Avri >> about bandwidth and reliable connectivity - those who have and those who >> don't. I've put it by itself because it is probably the most important of >> all in thinking about an RP only meeting. >> >> What do other people think? >> >> Deirdre >> >> On 17 February 2012 08:22, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>> .... >>> >>> B: If the IGF itself can not manage funds for its own MAG, why not all >>> the meetings goes Online with some Remote Partcipation through >>> Comprehensive Remote Meeting Application Tool. >>> .... >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah**** >>> [from IGFPAK] >>> >>> *From:* Jean-Louis FULLSACK >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Baudouin SCHOMBE < >>> b.schombe at gmail.com> >>> *Sent:* Friday, 17 February 2012, 15:52 >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Open consultation >>> >>> Dear Baudoin and all >>> >>> Multistakeholderism is just an empty shell if large parts of CS cannot >>> be able to attend official "open" events where decisions or even >>> recommendations are made. Most, if not all, of these parts of CS orgs are >>> those from DCs, and the main, if not unique, point there is lack of funding. >>> >>> During the open (WSIS Forum 2012) preparatory meeting held in Geneva on >>> last November, EUROLINC, through the voice of its president Louis Pouzin, >>> made en official statement on this very point that suggested a financial >>> contribution from ICANN for this specific -Internet related- activity. >>> >>> Here is the link to this statement : >>> http://www.eurolinc.eu/spip.php?article77 >>> >>> I wonder why nobody on the list mentions this important suggestion (i.a. >>> APC was present at this meeting). >>> >>> Imho, the proposal of EUROLONK is serious and documented. Therefore I'd >>> encourage CS involved in the IG process -the Caucus on IG in particular- to >>> strongly supports it. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Jean-Louis Fullsack >>> CSDPTT France >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > Message du 16/02/12 02:09 >>> > De : "Baudouin SCHOMBE" >>> > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Deirdre Williams" >>> > Copie à : >>> > Objet : Re: [governance] Open consultation >>> > >>> > Hello Williams, >>> > >>> > I acquired your point of view because in fact a good communication in >>> a country like within a community is one of the prime factors in all >>> human relationships. The concerns raised last time this is not just the politicians, >>> scientists, technicians but different social groups represented by the >>> various entities of civil society must also be involved in discussions. With >>> this in mind, respecting building on the principle of >>> multistakeholderism, we thought our exchanges organized locally by >>> relying on academic institutions, private sector, ICT technicians, >>> international agencies, subregional and regional active instiutions in >>> the country with civil society entities that represent the users, ie >>> consumers of ICT. >>> > Institutions designated by combining academic, we have 80% chance to set >>> up hub to allow people of the DRC to participate remotely, each as >>> possible, in discussions at local, sub regional, regional and >>> international levels. >>> > >>> > This process requires very good planning and that's what we have >>> already begun. >>> > >>> > The language aspect is also in the privileged position because in this >>> world of knowledge said, the language of communication has its very high >>> up. >>> > The national IGF is an indispensable support and essential for IGF subregional, >>> regional and international levels. >>> > >>> > Nothing durable can be designed if the nationals IGF are not >>> considered base in all these approaches. >>> > >>> > It is for this reason that even the level of funding, the >>> participation of active and useful really is becoming more problematic >>> in developing countries. We must think about it. >>> > We do not need the extras. Official delegations present but physically >>> absent in the debates or without any relevant contributions must also be >>> raised even if it is already always use the emblematic issue of " >>> sovereignty". >>> > >>> > It should also assess the active participation of official delegations >>> . >>> > >>> > In short we need to talk and not exclude us. >>> > >>> > >>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >>> > >>> > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 >>> > email : b.schombe at gmail.com >>> > skype : b.schombe >>> > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >>> > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2012/2/14 Deirdre Williams >>> > >>> >>> I should have sent this to the list yesterday. >>> Sorry it's so long. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> > >>> Comments from me and on submissions made by others: >>> There appears to be a need to change perspective. There has been a >>> shift so that now development is not only an issue between countries – >>> north and south – but can also be a stratification issue within countries – >>> a rich developed top layer and a poor underdeveloped lower layer both in >>> the north and in the south. This needs to be recognised. >>> >>> Remote participation (RP) needs an improved status. This is both a >>> technology issue and a recognition issue. The technology must make it >>> possible, and the recognition should as far as possible give it equal >>> status. There also need to be excellent remote participation moderators to >>> act as interface at meetings. And the issue of linguistic inclusion also >>> needs to be addressed with the possibility of several moderators covering >>> several different languages. I know this is a lot to ask for but equality >>> is not just an Anglophone quality. Perhaps initially willing face to face >>> participants could be ‘conscripted’ to provide inclusion in their various >>> languages. >>> >>> ISOC >>> >>> Remote participation >>> The growth in the number of remote hubs and the increase of remote >>> participants that >>> went with remote hubs is a basis to build on to overcome the challenge >>> and cost >>> of travel to attend meetings. – agree 100% >>> >>> National Regional IGFs >>> There is a need to enhance the exchange of reports between these two >>> interfaces to >>> continue and grow going forward. – definitely – perhaps a mechanism to >>> do this could be set up – or encouraged and improved? >>> >>> Funding >>> This model acts as a feedback mechanism, demonstrating that the IGF is >>> of value to its participants. – I have grave concerns where value is always >>> equated with money. >>> >>> we view the Internet as an enabler for a wide range of human rights, >>> such as the right to freedom of expression and opinion and access to >>> information and knowledge as well as the right to association - agree >>> >>> filtering be part of the main agenda of the 2012 IGF. DNS filtering is >>> increasingly used by governments to combat allegedly illegal online >>> activities, and this technical measure raises strong concerns, not only >>> with regard to the underlying Internet architecture, but also with regard >>> to due legal process and human rights, while not solving the problems at >>> their source. – this is certainly an issue, but I also find John Carr’s >>> arguments re blocking in the context of child pornography very convincing. >>> How to reconcile the unreconcilable? >>> >>> APC >>> In Nairobi, a concrete proposal to create a global internet governance >>> body was put on the >>> table by governments from developing countries (the IBSA proposal) , >>> which resulted in >>> exactly the kind of intense and diverse debate that the IGF was created >>> for. APC applauds this kind of active agenda-setting of developing >>> countries as a positive step to counteract exclusion and the predominance >>> of developed country agendas as the typical starting points for discussion. >>> However as we see it the question about the best way to discuss >>> development in relation to internet governance remains unanswered – this is >>> what triggered my first comment (see above) >>> (Change the perspective – not so much countries, more social strata) >>> >>> The need for clearly-defined rules within which to operate, and an >>> appropriate level of >>> transparency was also highlighted - yes >>> >>> if data discrimination for mobile internet is a technical necessity, >>> then policy-makers must define and clearly outline the principles for >>> governing such practices. – yes, and there should be general harmonisation >>> of policy as much as possible. >>> >>> However, high prices remain a problem. Electricity is still widely >>> unavailable and mobile phones are often prohibitively expensive for the >>> poorest in society, and prices for mobile subscriptions are artificially >>> high due to licensing fees and competition issues. There is an urgent need >>> for these critical barriers to universal mobile internet to be addressed >>> through communications policy and strategy – yes. At least in Saint Lucia >>> there is a government tax of 15% on mobile services – a very healthy >>> revenue generator. >>> >>> the issue of conflict minerals needs to be on the agenda for the next >>> IGF. Policy-makers must establish clear guidelines and legislation that >>> address issues of traceability, accountability and responsibility in the >>> mineral procurement chain. – this also needs greater public awareness. Can >>> this be taken together with the issue of ICT waste and recycling? >>> >>> internet intermediary liability, the impact of restrictions on freedom >>> of expression and association, and responding to violence against women >>> online. - yes >>> >>> freedom of association online needs to be assigned the same level of >>> importance as freedom of expression has in IGF debates. Indeed the two are >>> inextricably linked and interdependent. - YES >>> >>> Balance between intellectual property rights and access to knowledge -YES >>> >>> Disparities in access between rich and poor, urban and rural areas serve >>> to exacerbate existing social inequalities. – see my first point above >>> >>> human rights be the main theme of IGF in 2012 – good idea >>> >>> internet access as a human right, freedom of expression and freedom of >>> association. >>> Human rights topics which became visible for the first time at the IGF >>> included: >>> • a human rights approach to mobile >>> • remedies for internet rights violations >>> • human rights and corporate responsibility >>> • the rights of disabled people and young people. >>> >>> (who speaks for whom? Profile of mag; consider the person or consider >>> the ideas; do outward and visible signs automatically contain the inferred >>> inward and spiritual grace? In other words how to balance the individual >>> profile of the representative with the broader profile of the constituency >>> represented) >>> >>> Human rights is the framework with which we judge the merits of ICT >>> policy. To us internet governance has to assume a rights-based framework. >>> Business and technical decisions do not exist in a vacuum; they must be >>> informed and measured by respect for the rights and wellbeing of the people >>> who will be using technology >>> We need more cross-pollination between business, law enforcement, civil >>> society and the >>> technical communities. Rather than talking about each other, we should >>> be speaking to each other – YES AND YES AND YES >>> >>> NRO >>> Remote Participation was improved in 2011 compared to 2010, but there is >>> still much to be >>> done to improve this important tool for strengthening accessibility. – >>> see above >>> • Continue to encourage Regional Hubs and support greater direct >>> participation between them >>> and the IGF sessions in order to allow a bidirectional flow of >>> discussions – see above >>> >>> Build a link between Regional IG discussions and the MAG for feedback >>> and information >>> Sharing – see above >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> -- >>> > “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 >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From krischenowski at dotberlin.de Sat Feb 18 11:48:35 2012 From: krischenowski at dotberlin.de (Dirk Krischenowski) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:48:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! Message-ID: <006201ccee5d$29a09220$7ce1b660$@dotberlin.de> Hallo Sandra, ich (wir) sind natürlich wieder dabei, diesmal mit Bootstour auf der Elbe! Bei uns gibt es noch nicht richtig viel Neues, es läuft immer noch die Ausschreibung für .berlin und das, obwohl das Bewerbungsfenster schon längst angefangen hat. Zudem krasse Verträge mit den Gebietskörperschaften! Gibt es bei Euch etwas zu .leipzig, .sachsen, .dresden? Viele Grüße Dirk -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von sandra hoferichter Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Februar 2012 16:44 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Betreff: AW: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! Dear Karim, it will take place from 22-28 July 2012. Best Sandra -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Februar 2012 08:44 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; sandra hoferichter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! Dear Sandra, Thank you for this information. Sandra from which periode the fellowship programme was taken place. I'll always follow ESSIG web site but I did not see it. Thank you Karim, Comoros Quoting sandra hoferichter : > > For the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow: Learning in a Multi > Stakeholder Environment > > > Meissen / Germany, 22-28 July 2012 > > > Do you want to understand the multilayer, multi player mechanisms of > Internet Governance? Do you want to know what the political, economic, > social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you want > to learn what is behind cryptic acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, ccTLD, > gTLD, iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, W3C, IAB, WHOIS, GAC, IGF, WGIG and WSIS? > Do want to get more detailed information about technical Internet > standards, protocols, codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries > and registrars? Are you interested to look deeper into the > opportunities and risks of the emerging global Internet Economy? Do > you want to become an Internet Governance leader of tomorrow? > > Than you should apply for the “2012 European Summer School on Internet > Governance” (EuroSSIG). The 2012 Summer School offers a unique > multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The > programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with > world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well > known experts working directly in the technical community, the market > or in policy. It offers unique opportunities for learning in a multi > stakeholder environment, which includes also intense and individual > interactive communication with faculty members and fellows from all > over the world. The faculty is chaired by Prof. > Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus . > > Applications will be accepted both from students and individuals > working in the private sector, in government or in civil society > groups from all over the world. Application criteria are a basic > academic degree or relevant practical experiences. > > The course fee is 1000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the > lecture > programme: > > * six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy, > * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, > * one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory”, > * gala dinner in the historic wine restaurant “Vincenz Richter”, > * boat trip on the river Elbe > * free WiFi access and > * all teaching material. > > There is a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). > We can offer students from developing countries an opportunity to > apply for the fellowship programme. > > If you are interested in the European Summer School on Internet > Governance (EuroSSIG), please send applications until 15 April 2012 > by using the > plenar y/application-form> online application form on the website or > contacting directly > Intern et%20Governance> Sandra Hoferichter the coordinator of the > Summer School. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 18 12:51:44 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:51:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Massive, continuing, and apparently legal invasion of personal privacy In-Reply-To: <9Ux2Xd+XkiPPFAp8@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <9Ux2Xd+XkiPPFAp8@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4F3FE530.1070400@gmail.com> One can only pine for die-hard liberals to fight these kinds of issues... A friend reminded me of the pomposity of the discourse in the techie world where trying to ensure the most basic principles of fairness like this "evil" incident . It does not matter how careful one is, what matters is power, and the "aspirational class" of player in messy civil society seems to be more of a hindrance than a help... These are just instances where the challenges we face that require global solutions are constrained by the difficult task (as it is a task/process) of building a "universal" conception of things in a setting of paradiastole... On 2012/02/17 12:16 PM, Roland Perry 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 tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Sat Feb 18 13:45:36 2012 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 18:45:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey all, A few thoughts: *On the equity of remote participation:* Remote Participation will always be different, but it need not be inferior, to face-to-face participation, providing we advocate for the right sorts of processes. For example, being able to follow on a transcript, or having the birds-eye view of multiple sessions that RP can bring, can give a participant a different set of perspectives, and the ability to formulate a strong written intervention into a session. Where RP can fall down is when, as others have said, the meeting process doesn't adequately recognise it. We do need to build more resilient RP tools that can cope with glitches, but also to have more resilient workshop processes, so that, for example, before any decisions are made, or any elements of a session closed, there is a quick recap of discussions, and an explicit turn to read out RP contributions. Just as we've had 'rules or order' for committee meetings, and there have been proposals in the past for 'rules of order' for online dialogues and meetings, we need to articulate the rules for a blended face-to-face and RP meeting. We should also be encouraging in-person participants to use the same online discussion spaces as RPs, so that even if words are not spoken in the room, they can still influence many of those present in the face-to-face meeting. Roland's mention of assistants highlights another useful potential of RP, where remote communities can support their in-person representative. I'm reminded of some of the youth delegations at IGF11 who were using MSN to informally network with colleagues watching on the webcast and who were helping out with providing background information, or sourcing ideas for how to input into sessions. Perhaps it would be useful for us to articulate and describe some detailed narratives of how an ideal meeting involving RP as an equal element would look? *Practically moving forward: some suggestions:* - Ginger: would it be useful to remind people of how to get involved in the Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG). I'd be happy to put more time to this - but right now, finding the latest information on how to get involved is tricky (RPWG seems to have a mix of older websites and Facebook pages, so it's not clear where to get involved...) - Can we gather the evidence on where RP has worked; and where it hasn't - to present a clear evidence-based account to IGF of the shortcomings. E.g. a list of all the meetings that have taken place over the last three years, whether RP has been on offer, who has provided it and with what resources, and whether it has worked well or not. A simple etherpad or Google Spreadsheet should allow us to collect this information... - Can we identify clearly the different levels of resource that RP might need to be put on a solid foundation? From the resources needed for a volunteer-led and make-do RP model, to gold-standard RP where there are the resources to provide fully supported technical platforms with failsafes to avoid glitches getting in the way, to provide proper training to moderators and chairs of sessions, to engage with remote hubs, and to manage the process? It seems to me that being clear about the resources needed would help in advocating for support. - Michael: you've mentioned various CI writings on RP. Is there a good resource list on experiences of RP anywhere? Would putting together a small collection of resources and papers also be useful for advocacy for better RP platforms and processes? All the best Tim On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com >, at 06:35:00 on > Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Ginger Paque writes > > Why have we, as civil society and the IGC, been so ineffective at >> developing and achieving implementation of inclusion and effective >> remote participation? After several years, why is RP not now an >> integral part of all IG and IGF policy processes? >> > > For the inter-sessional planning meetings, because they are still > primarily institutionalised into the Geneva landscape (which for Europeans > is at least better than having to go through the same exercise in New York). > > The only way this can be broken is for such meetings (and indeed similar > non-UN meetings, this is not a criticism aimed particularly at DESA) to > grind to a halt whenever there's a glitch in the remote participation, and > not continue until the remote participation has been fixed. > > Of course, that results in an extreme waste of the resources of the people > who *have* managed to get the funds to travel to the venue, so it's not an > easy decision. > > But until such a rule is applied, then remote participants will always > have an inherent second class status, and not just because of the greater > difficulty of following and contributing to a meeting from 5,000 miles and > 12hrs timezone away. > > The problem is that the world is largely organised around the idea of > representative democracy, and this assume your representatives are able to > get to the meetings. > > I've also got something to say about substitutes, for example in the MAG. > I'm not sure it's very common for elected representatives to send > substitutes to national Parliaments etc, or in the private sector to > appoint a proxy who isn't already invited to the meeting. > > But in both cases it's entirely possible to arrange for an assistant to > follow all the proceedings on mailing lists, and to brief the > representative so that the latter's work is restricted to not much more > than actually attending the physical meetings. > -- > 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 > > -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 18 14:40:20 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:40:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 18:45:36 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Tim Davies writes > >Roland's mention of assistants highlights another useful potential of >RP, where remote communities can support their in-person >representative. I'm reminded of some of the youth delegations at IGF11 >who were using MSN to informally network with colleagues watching on >the webcast and who were helping out with providing background >information, or sourcing ideas for how to input into sessions I agree that it's very useful for a remote participant not to be simply "tuned in" to the main discussion, but also in contact with several other remote participants at the same time. Could we call that a "virtual hub" perhaps? But the assistants I was thinking of were more along the lines of people who can do the leg-work for someone in a very select position (eg a MAG member) and pass them a dossier of what's been happening, and suggestions on what to say, so that the MAG member has a more realistic commitment to be on stage only for the relevant three days a few times a year, rather than follow everything themselves at first hand. The caucus co-ordinators are perhaps halfway to the role because they seek, and are given, a collective statement to make. In other words, all members of the caucus are to some extent their eyes and ears, advisors and assistants. Unfortunately seats like those on the MAG are given to individuals, and not offices, except perhaps from the government stakeholder group where there has apparently been a little passing of the baton from one officeholder to another. Not that this is a bad thing, perhaps more stakeholder groups could benefit from the continuity this provides. -- 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 Sat Feb 18 16:06:03 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:06:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] Message-ID: Dear All, We are pleased to announce the results of the Survey that was held recently. The Survey is attached. We thank all who participated. Kind Regards, Fatima Cambronero, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC SURVEY RESULTS IGF 2012.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 38586 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 19:50:36 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 22:50:36 -0200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I have included the main points of this discussions (ex: preparatory meetings conducted online, etc) among my contributions to the next meeting of the WG on IGF improvements. I have also mentioned the workshop on RP and the main principles that have been jointly drafted last year. I hope that this is taken into account on the discussions. I will keep you informed. Marília On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message mail.gmail.com>, > at 18:45:36 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Tim Davies co.uk > writes > > >> Roland's mention of assistants highlights another useful potential of RP, >> where remote communities can support their in-person representative. I'm >> reminded of some of the youth delegations at IGF11 who were using MSN to >> informally network with colleagues watching on the webcast and who were >> helping out with providing background information, or sourcing ideas for >> how to input into sessions >> > > I agree that it's very useful for a remote participant not to be simply > "tuned in" to the main discussion, but also in contact with several other > remote participants at the same time. > > Could we call that a "virtual hub" perhaps? > > But the assistants I was thinking of were more along the lines of people > who can do the leg-work for someone in a very select position (eg a MAG > member) and pass them a dossier of what's been happening, and suggestions > on what to say, so that the MAG member has a more realistic commitment to > be on stage only for the relevant three days a few times a year, rather > than follow everything themselves at first hand. > > The caucus co-ordinators are perhaps halfway to the role because they > seek, and are given, a collective statement to make. In other words, all > members of the caucus are to some extent their eyes and ears, advisors and > assistants. > > Unfortunately seats like those on the MAG are given to individuals, and > not offices, except perhaps from the government stakeholder group where > there has apparently been a little passing of the baton from one > officeholder to another. Not that this is a bad thing, perhaps more > stakeholder groups could benefit from the continuity this provides. > -- > 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 > > -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Feb 19 06:13:26 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:13:26 +0800 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> On 19/02/2012, at 8:50 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear all, > > I have included the main points of this discussions (ex: preparatory meetings conducted online, etc) among my contributions to the next meeting of the WG on IGF improvements. I have also mentioned the workshop on RP and the main principles that have been jointly drafted last year. I hope that this is taken into account on the discussions. Also this, which dates from 2008: http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community The plan was never implemented but we are still complaining about the same deficiencies today. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 The global voice for consumers: www.consumersinternational.org Connect with CI: Twitter @ConsumersInt | http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Help CI stay in touch: please also add ConsumersInternational at sut1.co.uk to your safe sender list 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 tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Sun Feb 19 06:32:41 2012 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:32:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Can I second the importance of the 2008 proposal Jeremy has shared below. The lack of a good IGF web presence and structure to the information is a very significant barrier to wider engagement. (Would either putting some time into RP or the proposal Jeremy outlined be something that could form an application for an ISOC Community Grant http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/grants-and-awards/grants/community-grants, or some other grant funding application?) All the best Tim > Dear all, > > I have included the main points of this discussions (ex: preparatory > meetings conducted online, etc) among my contributions to the next meeting > of the WG on IGF improvements. I have also mentioned the workshop on RP and > the main principles that have been jointly drafted last year. I hope that > this is taken into account on the discussions. > > > Also this, which dates from 2008: > > http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > The plan was never implemented but we are still complaining about the same > deficiencies today. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > *The global voice for consumers*: www.consumersinternational.org > *Connect with CI*: Twitter *@ConsumersInt > * | http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > *Help CI stay in touch:* please also add ConsumersInternational at sut1.co.uk to > your safe sender list > > 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 > > -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Feb 19 08:18:47 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:18:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Going through the thread from the beginning I'm picking up a couple of issues which perhaps deserve some more attention. Roland points to the desirability of continuity, and makes suggestions about how information might be synthesised. Tim mentions this as well. Tim also refers to '(RPWG seems to have a mix of older websites and Facebook pages, so it's not clear where to get involved...)' in a context of not being clear where/how to join in. My concern on these points is noise. How do you reach the main points of the discussion if everyone is 'talking' at once? This is not to stifle free expression, but to achieve objective filtering. And also to cut down on fragmentation of information so that all the pieces can be located together. Tim mentions 'more resilient workshop processes'; I would also appeal for more resilient participants, both physically present and remote - the remote to insist on, even demand, their right to hear and be heard, and the physically present to support them in every way possible. Finally I think it was Tim who proposed putting together an evidence based paper supporting remote participation - the evidence should include an indication, as far as possible, of how remote participation has been used – by how many people. I think of rights of way in England - if you don't keep walking on them you lose them. And since sets of principles on remote participation already exist they need to be put back on the table where everyone can see them. Deirdre On 19 February 2012 07:32, Tim Davies wrote: > Can I second the importance of the 2008 proposal Jeremy has shared below. > The lack of a good IGF web presence and structure to the information is a > very significant barrier to wider engagement. > > (Would either putting some time into RP or the proposal Jeremy outlined be > something that could form an application for an ISOC Community Grant > http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/grants-and-awards/grants/community-grants, > or some other grant funding application?) > > All the best > > Tim > >> Dear all, >> >> I have included the main points of this discussions (ex: preparatory >> meetings conducted online, etc) among my contributions to the next meeting >> of the WG on IGF improvements. I have also mentioned the workshop on RP and >> the main principles that have been jointly drafted last year. I hope that >> this is taken into account on the discussions. >> >> >> Also this, which dates from 2008: >> >> http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >> >> The plan was never implemented but we are still complaining about the >> same deficiencies today. >> >> -- >> >> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm >> Project Coordinator* >> Consumers International >> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, >> Malaysia >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >> *The global voice for consumers*: www.consumersinternational.org >> *Connect with CI*: Twitter *@ConsumersInt >> * | http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> *Help CI stay in touch:* please also add >> ConsumersInternational at sut1.co.uk to your safe sender list >> >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - > #5381958. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 08:32:55 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:32:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks to sharing this survey result SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/18 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear All, > > We are pleased to announce the results of the Survey that was held > recently. The Survey is attached. We thank all who participated. > > Kind Regards, > > Fatima Cambronero, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka 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 avri at acm.org Sun Feb 19 10:59:51 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:59:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <99DEBE7F-91BC-4990-80B9-A41F88DB4703@acm.org> On 18 Feb 2012, at 16:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > from the report: > There were a total of 20 people who participated in the Survey which ran for 24 hours from when it was published. That is perhaps 10% of the IGF list population. In a self-selection poll I think the most significant discovery about this poll is how few of us took part. And I think it is a fact that should have been noted in the discussion. As for myself, i got to questions i could not answer, e.g. what regional IGF am I part of, and never completed the poll. That is often a problem with untested polls, the questions being asked don't often work and leave a poll taker confused about what to answer. I think polling can be a very valid opinion gathering technique, but i think that quickie polls that aren't tested and receive little participation are marginal in their utility. avri 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Sun Feb 19 11:21:13 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:21:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> In regards to remote participation, there are efforts underway for IGF 2012 for improve the situation. Not sure some of you caught it, but during the Open MAG meeting this past week in Geneva Google mentioned that they were going to be supporting the IGF Secretariat in the months to come. It was specifically mentioned that they are making a contribution to the IGF fund and would like to work with them to improve the virtual participation of the Open Meetings and IGF as a whole. There's defiantly a need to strategically improve the remote participation modalities at the IGF and its related preparatory meetings (Open Consultation, MAG meetings, etc). Both volunteer and professional assistance, in my opinion, is most welcome . What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat and/or Google. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-19, at 6:13 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 19/02/2012, at 8:50 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I have included the main points of this discussions (ex: preparatory meetings conducted online, etc) among my contributions to the next meeting of the WG on IGF improvements. I have also mentioned the workshop on RP and the main principles that have been jointly drafted last year. I hope that this is taken into account on the discussions. > > Also this, which dates from 2008: > > http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > The plan was never implemented but we are still complaining about the same deficiencies today. > > -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Feb 19 11:31:26 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:31:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG [Message from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2976A11D-48B0-45A5-9E5C-82CCC0002574@privaterra.org> I'm a bitt confused by the email below... Didn't the Nomcom report sent last friday imply that the IGF Nomcom selection of names for the renewed MAG was already complete and submitted to the secretariat? Is the Nomcom process being re-run? If it is, then I would recommend that all those who either submitted and/or had their names submitted to the Nomcom not need to resubmit their materials. Their materials should be accepted as-is. Personally, if a nomcom report has been issued - a new process should not be run.2 days notice, in my opinion - is not enough time. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-17, at 1:42 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > For those who would wish to have their candidatures or nominees for MAG considered by the MAG Nominating Committee, please send your response in the requisite format to the Nominating Committee by the 20th February at 1800 UTC +12 . > > Send your applications to:- > > To: Nominating Committee: nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: "Jacqueline Morris" , "Thomas Lowenhaupt" , "shaila mistry" > > Once the Nominating Committee has made its decision, they will inform me and I will alert the list and these names will be sent to the IGF Secretariat. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > [Co-Coordinator] > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline Morris > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 09:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG > > Fellow IGC List Members, > > The IGC's Nominating Committee (nomcom) has begun its work selecting new members for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). Our work was initiated by a letter from Under-Secretary-General Sha Zukang requesting that we submit the names of potential candidates to the IGF Secretariat by 31 January 2012. (See letter.) > > We do apologise for the late start, but the year-end holidays did cause us some difficulty in communicating. So we will do our best to get everything sorted in a proper manner in good time. > > The MAG's role is to assist the Secretary General in convening the Internet Governance Forums. The Forums site provide an interactive, collaborative space where all stakeholders can air their views and exchange idea. > > The MAG comprises 56 Members from governments, the private sector and civil society, including representatives from the academic and technical communities. It holds meetings three times a year at the Palais des Nations in Geneva and is preceded by open consultations meetings. A list of current MAG members is found athttp://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010. > > Request For Nominations > > Please submit nominations – including self-nominations – from which we will select those to be advanced as IGC's recommendations for MAG membership. The recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and be in broad alignment with positions both stated in our charter. > > All members of MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with not only their respective stakeholder groups, but also a wide range of other connections, such as region, gender, and their local civil society. > > Current MAG members are encouraged to re-apply, but in the interests of diversity, we would like to limit to those who have already served 2 consecutive terms. > · In nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for his/her candidature. > · Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with some clarity the activities and / or positions taken by the person in the IG and information society arena. > · The person should be informed that the details submitted may be published even if the nomination is unsuccessful. > · Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG. > · Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how they carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing IGC’s positions as well as the larger CS positions. We would also like to hear what they have contributed, what they intend to contribute and why they want to continue in the role. Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may also be mentioned. > · Nominations should also include an assurance that those selected for the MAG will maintain close engagement with CS constituencies, including and especially the IGC. MAG selectees will be required to keep both CS constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as well as present/ push their positions in the MAG. Nominations must be sent to (Jacqueline Morris or to the list ) no later than midnight January 20, 2012 UTC. > · It is recommended that nominees be members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past. > Remember, we need your nominations by January 20. > > Sincerely, > > Jacqueline A. Morris > NomCom Chair > Respected NomCom of IGC CS, > > Please find herewith my EOI (for IGC NOMCOM consideration ) to serve at MAG. > ============================================================= > > > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:27 AM > To: IGC > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Announcement by USG Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Chengetai Masango > Subject: [igf_members] Announcement by USG Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG > Date: 21 December 2011 13:37:10 EST > To: igf Forum > > Dear All, > > Please find below an announcement by Under-Secretary-General Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG. > > The information has been posted on the IGF Website and I kindly ask that you also disseminate the information amongst your respective stakeholder groups. > > Best regards > > Chengetai > > Announcement > > The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been instrumental in planning the programme of the annual meetings of the IGF. > > We would like to express our gratitude to all members of MAG, who have donated their time, effort and valuable guidance in ensuring the smooth running of the IGF. > > In light of the established principles and practices of MAG on the rotation and selection of its members, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), therefore, requests all stakeholder groups –government, private sector, civil society, and technical and academic communities- to submit names of candidates from developed and developing countries, as well as from economies in transition, to be considered to become part of MAG to contribute to the multistakeholder process bringing the perspectives on Internet governance from their respective group for a period of one year. It is recommended that group nominees be members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past. > > Owing to the fact that the renewal process was not done in 2011, it is suggested that two thirds of each group’s membership be renewed in 2012 along the guidelines provided in the table below. Please note that groups can resubmit names of current MAG members’ for re-election. > > Groups > Current Status > Number to Renew > Number to Stay > Government > 25 > 16 > 9 > Private Sector > 10 > 6 > 4 > Civil Society > 10 > 6 > 4 > Academic and Technical Communities > 10 > 6 > 4 > Total Number of Members > 55 > 34 > 21 > > > It would be appreciated if respective groups could submit the names of the potential candidates to the IGF Secretariat by 31 January 2012 via email: magrenewal2011 at intgovforum.org using the attached submission template. > It should be noted that plans are underway to have the next Open Consultation and MAG Meeting take place on 14 - 16 February 2011. In the event that the renewed MAG is not on board by then, the current MAG will convene at this time and the renewed MAG will convene in May. > Accordingly to the established principles and practices, > (i) Members of MAG are selected to achieve balance among all stakeholder groups, representing all regions and attaining gender equality; > > (ii) All MAG members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; > > (iii) The main task of MAG is to provide advice on the programme and main themes of the next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum; > > (iv) MAG members are expected to attend two to three MAG meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, in addition to the annual IGF meeting, as well as to participate actively in the preparatory process throughout the year through continuous engagement in the online multilateral dialogue among MAG members in between such meetings. > > (v) MAG meetings are open to Intergovernmental organizations to participate. > > Thank you and I look forward to the continuous success of the Internet Governance Forum. > > (Signed) > Sha Zukang > Under-Secretary-General > Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) > > > > > Submission Template: > > Title: > Surname: > First name: > Other names: > Job Title(s) > Organization(s): > City of Residence: > Country of Residence: > Nationality: > Stakeholder Group: > Contact Email: > Contact Phone: > Brief relevant biography of not more than 300 words ) > > > > Name put forward by: > > Representing: > > Contact email : > > Telephone: > > _______________________________________________ > igf_members mailing list > igf_members at intgovforum.org > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Feb 19 11:32:29 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:32:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG [Message from Co-Coordinator] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7D8119C4-AAA4-41A4-B75F-4ABC0529D94E@privaterra.org> Most confusing given a Nomcom recommendations were already sent to the secretariat and a report was published. robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-17, at 7:27 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Can someone explain this? > > Is this a call for nominations in addition to those already submitted? > > > Ian > > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:42:31 +1200 > To: > Cc: , shaila mistry , Thomas Lowenhaupt , Jacqueline Morris > Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG [Message from Co-Coordinator] > >> Dear All, >> >> For those who would wish to have their candidatures or nominees for MAG considered by the MAG Nominating Committee, please send your response in the requisite format to the Nominating Committee by the 20th February at 1800 UTC +12 . >> >> Send your applications to:- >> >> To: Nominating Committee: nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org >> Cc: "Jacqueline Morris" , "Thomas Lowenhaupt" , "shaila mistry" >> >> Once the Nominating Committee has made its decision, they will inform me and I will alert the list and these names will be sent to the IGF Secretariat. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> [Co-Coordinator] >> >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline Morris >> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 09:01 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: [governance] URGENT - Nominations for the MAG >> >> Fellow IGC List Members, >> >> The IGC's Nominating Committee (nomcom) has begun its work selecting new members for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). Our work was initiated by a letter from Under-Secretary-General Sha Zukang requesting that we submit the names of potential candidates to the IGF Secretariat by 31 January 2012. (See letter .) >> >> We do apologise for the late start, but the year-end holidays did cause us some difficulty in communicating. So we will do our best to get everything sorted in a proper manner in good time. >> >> The MAG's role is to assist the Secretary General in convening the Internet Governance Forums . The Forums site provide an interactive, collaborative space where all stakeholders can air their views and exchange idea. >> >> The MAG comprises 56 Members from governments, the private sector and civil society, including representatives from the academic and technical communities. It holds meetings three times a year at the Palais des Nations in Geneva and is preceded by open consultations meetings. A list of current MAG members is found athttp://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010. >> >> Request For Nominations >> >> Please submit nominations – including self-nominations – from which we will select those to be advanced as IGC's recommendations for MAG membership. The recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and be in broad alignment with positions both stated in our charter . >> >> All members of MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with not only their respective stakeholder groups, but also a wide range of other connections, such as region, gender, and their local civil society. >> >> Current MAG members are encouraged to re-apply, but in the interests of diversity, we would like to limit to those who have already served 2 consecutive terms. >> · In nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for his/her candidature. >> · Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with some clarity the activities and / or positions taken by the person in the IG and information society arena. >> · The person should be informed that the details submitted may be published even if the nomination is unsuccessful. >> · Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG. >> · Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how they carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in advocating and pushing IGC’s positions as well as the larger CS positions. We would also like to hear what they have contributed, what they intend to contribute and why they want to continue in the role. Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may also be mentioned. >> · Nominations should also include an assurance that those selected for the MAG will maintain close engagement with CS constituencies, including and especially the IGC. MAG selectees will be required to keep both CS constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as well as present/ push their positions in the MAG. Nominations must be sent to (Jacqueline Morris or to the list ) no later than midnight January 20, 2012 UTC. >> · It is recommended that nominees be members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past. >> Remember, we need your nominations by January 20. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Jacqueline A. Morris >> NomCom Chair >> Respected NomCom of IGC CS, >> >> Please find herewith my EOI (for IGC NOMCOM consideration ) to serve at MAG. >> ============================================================= >> >> >> From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:27 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: [governance] Fwd: [igf_members] Announcement by USG Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> From: Chengetai Masango >> Subject: [igf_members] Announcement by USG Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG >> Date: 21 December 2011 13:37:10 EST >> To: igf Forum >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please find below an announcement by Under-Secretary-General Mr. Sha Zukang on the MAG. >> >> The information has been posted on the IGF Website and I kindly ask that you also disseminate the information amongst your respective stakeholder groups. >> >> Best regards >> >> Chengetai >> >> Announcement >> >> The Internet Governance Forum's Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has been instrumental in planning the programme of the annual meetings of the IGF. >> >> We would like to express our gratitude to all members of MAG, who have donated their time, effort and valuable guidance in ensuring the smooth running of the IGF. >> >> In light of the established principles and practices of MAG on the rotation and selection of its members, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), therefore, requests all stakeholder groups –government, private sector, civil society, and technical and academic communities- to submit names of candidates from developed and developing countries, as well as from economies in transition, to be considered to become part of MAG to contribute to the multistakeholder process bringing the perspectives on Internet governance from their respective group for a period of one year. It is recommended that group nominees be members who have actively participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past. >> >> Owing to the fact that the renewal process was not done in 2011, it is suggested that two thirds of each group’s membership be renewed in 2012 along the guidelines provided in the table below. Please note that groups can resubmit names of current MAG members’ for re-election. >> >> Groups >> Current Status >> Number to Renew >> Number to Stay >> Government >> 25 >> 16 >> 9 >> Private Sector >> 10 >> 6 >> 4 >> Civil Society >> 10 >> 6 >> 4 >> Academic and Technical Communities >> 10 >> 6 >> 4 >> Total Number of Members >> 55 >> 34 >> 21 >> >> >> It would be appreciated if respective groups could submit the names of the potential candidates to the IGF Secretariat by 31 January 2012 via email: magrenewal2011 at intgovforum.org using the attached submission template. >> It should be noted that plans are underway to have the next Open Consultation and MAG Meeting take place on 14 - 16 February 2011. In the event that the renewed MAG is not on board by then, the current MAG will convene at this time and the renewed MAG will convene in May. >> Accordingly to the established principles and practices, >> (i) Members of MAG are selected to achieve balance among all stakeholder groups, representing all regions and attaining gender equality; >> >> (ii) All MAG members serve in their personal capacity, but are expected to have extensive linkages with their respective stakeholder groups; >> >> (iii) The main task of MAG is to provide advice on the programme and main themes of the next meeting of the Internet Governance Forum; >> >> (iv) MAG members are expected to attend two to three MAG meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, in addition to the annual IGF meeting, as well as to participate actively in the preparatory process throughout the year through continuous engagement in the online multilateral dialogue among MAG members in between such meetings. >> >> (v) MAG meetings are open to Intergovernmental organizations to participate. >> >> Thank you and I look forward to the continuous success of the Internet Governance Forum. >> >> (Signed) >> Sha Zukang >> Under-Secretary-General >> Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) >> >> >> >> >> Submission Template: >> >> Title: >> Surname: >> First name: >> Other names: >> Job Title(s) >> Organization(s): >> City of Residence: >> Country of Residence: >> Nationality: >> Stakeholder Group: >> Contact Email: >> Contact Phone: >> Brief relevant biography of not more than 300 words ) >> >> >> >> Name put forward by: >> >> Representing: >> >> Contact email : >> >> Telephone: >> >> _______________________________________________ >> igf_members mailing list >> igf_members at intgovforum.org >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igf_members_intgovforum.org >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From brett at accessnow.org Sun Feb 19 12:06:27 2012 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:06:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council Panel on FX and the Internet In-Reply-To: <008c01cce78e$0ee59140$2cb0b3c0$@apc.org> References: <008c01cce78e$0ee59140$2cb0b3c0$@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Joy, Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the broader constellation of human rights. For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations can be found here: https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual Panel. Brett -- Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org | rightscon.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: > Dear colleagues,**** > > This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights > Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). **** > > Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual > report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session > will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of > Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel > event. **** > > ** ** > > We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be > planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) > and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you > are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and > cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country > reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue.** > ** > > If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the > panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if > possible.**** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > ** ** > > Joy Liddicoat**** > > Project Coordinator**** > > Internet Rights are Human Rights**** > > www.apc.org**** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 12:19:29 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:19:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Dear All, This is fantastic news. Robert, this is great to know. We have also published a Draft Statement on the website and inviting comments. We thank Deirdre Williams for consolidating thoughts from the Emails on the subject. Visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/?p=32 The alternative is to visit the Statement workspace. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > In regards to remote participation, there are efforts underway for IGF > 2012 for improve the situation. > > Not sure some of you caught it, but during the Open MAG meeting this past > week in Geneva Google mentioned that they were going to be supporting the > IGF Secretariat in the months to come. It was specifically mentioned that > they are making a contribution to the IGF fund and would like to work with > them to improve the virtual participation of the Open Meetings and IGF as a > whole. > > There's defiantly a need to strategically improve the remote participation > modalities at the IGF and its related preparatory meetings (Open > Consultation, MAG meetings, etc). Both volunteer and professional > assistance, in my opinion, is most welcome . > > What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - well, hopefully > we'll find out soon from the Secretariat and/or Google. > > regards > > Robert > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-19, at 6:13 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 19/02/2012, at 8:50 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Dear all, > > I have included the main points of this discussions (ex: preparatory > meetings conducted online, etc) among my contributions to the next meeting > of the WG on IGF improvements. I have also mentioned the workshop on RP and > the main principles that have been jointly drafted last year. I hope that > this is taken into account on the discussions. > > > Also this, which dates from 2008: > > http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > The plan was never implemented but we are still complaining about the same > deficiencies today. > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Feb 19 12:19:53 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:19:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council Panel on FX and the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <008c01cce78e$0ee59140$2cb0b3c0$@apc.org> Message-ID: Brett, In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative is still being discussed. Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > Thanks Joy, > > Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). > > We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the broader constellation of human rights. > > For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations can be found here: > > https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights > > It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual Panel. > > Brett > > -- > Brett Solomon > Executive Director | Access > accessnow.org | rightscon.org > +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow > > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). > > Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. > > > > We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. > > If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Joy Liddicoat > > Project Coordinator > > Internet Rights are Human Rights > > www.apc.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 Sun Feb 19 12:28:42 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:28:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement on Remote Participation [URGENT CALL FOR COMMENTS] Message-ID: Dear All, As a result of electronic discussions on remote participation, Deirdre Williams has taken the time to consolidate the material, that is feedback, thoughts and sent to us. After slight edits, these are now posted on the IGC website for your comments and feedback. Kindly visit http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 and post your comments today. Feel free to add to the Draft. Kind Regards, Izumi and 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 brett at accessnow.org Sun Feb 19 12:45:57 2012 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:45:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council Panel on FX and the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <008c01cce78e$0ee59140$2cb0b3c0$@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Robert for the update. The closing date for submissions to the HRC took place a week or so before the MAG consultation, but I still think we hold the position it should be the IGF's central theme. However, if there is consensus around it being one of the cross cutting themes, I'd say that we would support that too. Brett On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Brett, > > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum > should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that > was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this > past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and > it was not accepted. > > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting > have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the > 2012 IGF. That alternative > is still being discussed. > > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort is > needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > > > Thanks Joy, > > > > Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High > Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). > > > > We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the > realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil > society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with > confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the > broader constellation of human rights. > > > > For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations > can be found here: > > > > > https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights > > > > It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual > Panel. > > > > Brett > > > > -- > > Brett Solomon > > Executive Director | Access > > accessnow.org | rightscon.org > > +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights > Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). > > > > Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s > annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The > session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the > government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in > the panel event. > > > > > > > > We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be > planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) > and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you > are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and > cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country > reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. > > > > If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the > panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if > possible. > > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > > Joy Liddicoat > > > > Project Coordinator > > > > Internet Rights are Human Rights > > > > www.apc.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 > > -- Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org | rightscon.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Sun Feb 19 12:47:58 2012 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:47:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement on Remote Participation [URGENT CALL FOR COMMENTS] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DC80703-C30C-419E-8F59-629A1DAFCD42@psg.com> Hi, is there a reason that does not seem to be linked to our IGC system accounts? avri On 19 Feb 2012, at 12:28, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > As a result of electronic discussions on remote participation, Deirdre Williams has taken the time to consolidate the material, that is feedback, thoughts and sent to us. After slight edits, these are now posted on the IGC website for your comments and feedback. Kindly visit http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 and post your comments today. > > Feel free to add to the Draft. > > Kind Regards, > > Izumi and 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 19 12:51:42 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:51:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement on Remote Participation [URGENT CALL FOR COMMENTS] In-Reply-To: <4DC80703-C30C-419E-8F59-629A1DAFCD42@psg.com> References: <4DC80703-C30C-419E-8F59-629A1DAFCD42@psg.com> Message-ID: Thanks for alerting us to this, the matter has been escalated to Jeremy who manages the Technical aspects of the website. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > is there a reason that does not seem to be linked to our IGC system > accounts? > > avri > > On 19 Feb 2012, at 12:28, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > As a result of electronic discussions on remote participation, Deirdre > Williams has taken the time to consolidate the material, that is feedback, > thoughts and sent to us. After slight edits, these are now posted on the > IGC website for your comments and feedback. Kindly visit > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 and post your comments > today. > > > > Feel free to add to the Draft. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Izumi and 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 Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Sun Feb 19 12:55:05 2012 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:55:05 +0500 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council Panel on FX and the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <008c01cce78e$0ee59140$2cb0b3c0$@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Robert, What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. Best wishes & regards Shahzad Sent from my iPhone On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Brett, > > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. > > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative > is still being discussed. > > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > >> Thanks Joy, >> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). >> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the broader constellation of human rights. >> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations can be found here: >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual Panel. >> >> Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Solomon >> Executive Director | Access >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >> >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> Project Coordinator >> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >> >> www.apc.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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 13:06:14 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:06:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: <99DEBE7F-91BC-4990-80B9-A41F88DB4703@acm.org> References: <99DEBE7F-91BC-4990-80B9-A41F88DB4703@acm.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 18 Feb 2012, at 16:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > > > from the report: > > > There were a total of 20 people who participated in the Survey which ran > for 24 hours from when it was published. > > That is perhaps 10% of the IGF list population. > This may be so but it's better. than nothing. . This was largely spontaneous and this was mentioned in the report. As a matter of there were some discussions on the Skype and also on the pirate pad about the various suggestions from those that were present in the Open MAG consultations on possible themes etc. There were a few members who suggested alternative themes. We thought that it would be fun to put these to the list for comments to get a "feel" of what they thought. > > In a self-selection poll I think the most significant discovery about this > poll is how few of us took part. > And I think it is a fact that should have been noted in the discussion. > On average for any email thread to be sent to the list, you can get 5 to 10 responding to the thread in a single day depending on how interested the participants are. For a 24 hour span to get 20 people to respond is ok even if it were spontaneous. For the future, yes more time can be given to enable many more to participate but I think we had a good cross section of people from all the regions in the world. > > As for myself, i got to questions i could not answer, e.g. what regional > IGF am I part of, and never completed the poll. There were a few people that left this blank. > That is often a problem with untested polls, the questions being asked > don't often work and leave a poll taker confused about what to answer. > When in doubt leave it blank or simply put your comment. > > I think polling can be a very valid opinion gathering technique, but i > think that quickie polls that aren't tested and receive little > participation are marginal in their utility. > Hmmm I differ in opinion. It is far better to at least engage with the list and guage what they are feeling rather than not engage them at all. In any event, there is always room for improvement. If you would like to suggest pointers for improvement, feel free to initiate something. > > avri > > > 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 Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 19 13:12:30 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:12:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council Panel on FX and the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <008c01cce78e$0ee59140$2cb0b3c0$@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear All, We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the years. We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put together a first draft for others to comment. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Robert, > > What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? Kindly > do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. > > Best wishes & regards > Shahzad > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra > wrote: > > > Brett, > > > > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum > should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that > was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this > past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and > it was not accepted. > > > > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting > have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the > 2012 IGF. That alternative > > is still being discussed. > > > > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort > is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. > > > > regards > > > > Robert > > > > > > -- > > R. Guerra > > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > > > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > > > >> Thanks Joy, > >> > >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the > High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb > 29). > >> > >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the > realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil > society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with > confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the > broader constellation of human rights. > >> > >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations > can be found here: > >> > >> > https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights > >> > >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the > actual Panel. > >> > >> Brett > >> > >> -- > >> Brett Solomon > >> Executive Director | Access > >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org > >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, > >> > >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights > Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). > >> > >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s > annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The > session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the > government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in > the panel event. > >> > >> > >> > >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be > planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) > and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you > are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and > cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country > reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. > >> > >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the > panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if > possible. > >> > >> > >> > >> Kind regards > >> > >> > >> > >> Joy Liddicoat > >> > >> Project Coordinator > >> > >> Internet Rights are Human Rights > >> > >> www.apc.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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 19 13:24:07 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:24:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <99DEBE7F-91BC-4990-80B9-A41F88DB4703@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, It is all well and good that you disagree with me. Two points: - to not indicate how how small a percentage of people answered the poll in its documentation seems dishonest to me. - for IGC to put out such information as somehow representing the view of IGC, puts IGC in a poor light. So I recommend editing the documentation and recommend against passing this on as anything other than the opinion of 20 self selected individuals. avri On 19 Feb 2012, at 13:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 18 Feb 2012, at 16:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > > > from the report: > > > There were a total of 20 people who participated in the Survey which ran for 24 hours from when it was published. > > That is perhaps 10% of the IGF list population. > This may be so but it's better. than nothing. . This was largely spontaneous and this was mentioned in the report. As a matter of there were some discussions on the Skype and also on the pirate pad about the various suggestions from those that were present in the Open MAG consultations on possible themes etc. There were a few members who suggested alternative themes. > > We thought that it would be fun to put these to the list for comments to get a "feel" of what they thought. > > In a self-selection poll I think the most significant discovery about this poll is how few of us took part. > And I think it is a fact that should have been noted in the discussion. > > On average for any email thread to be sent to the list, you can get 5 to 10 responding to the thread in a single day depending on how interested the participants are. For a 24 hour span to get 20 people to respond is ok even if it were spontaneous. For the future, yes more time can be given to enable many more to participate but I think we had a good cross section of people from all the regions in the world. > > As for myself, i got to questions i could not answer, e.g. what regional IGF am I part of, and never completed the poll. > > There were a few people that left this blank. > > That is often a problem with untested polls, the questions being asked don't often work and leave a poll taker confused about what to answer. > When in doubt leave it blank or simply put your comment. > > I think polling can be a very valid opinion gathering technique, but i think that quickie polls that aren't tested and receive little participation are marginal in their utility. > > Hmmm I differ in opinion. It is far better to at least engage with the list and guage what they are feeling rather than not engage them at all. In any event, there is always room for improvement. If you would like to suggest pointers for improvement, feel free to initiate something. > > avri > > > 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 > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > 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 Sun Feb 19 14:04:43 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:04:43 +1200 Subject: [governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <99DEBE7F-91BC-4990-80B9-A41F88DB4703@acm.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > It is all well and good that you disagree with me. > > Two points: > > - to not indicate how how small a percentage of people answered the poll > in its documentation seems dishonest to me. > It was mentioned in the report that 20 people participated. This is paragraph 3 of page 4 of the Report. Percentages revolve around this number. So if you see 10%,it simply means 10% of 20 which is 2. > - for IGC to put out such information as somehow representing the view of > IGC, puts IGC in a poor light. > > There is nothing sinister and people are *educated* enough to know that it is only a sample space. > So I recommend editing the documentation and recommend against passing > this on as anything other than the opinion of 20 self selected individuals. > The Survey was *open to all the list* and the list was invited to participate. People exercise their right to choose to participate. > , it is > avri > > > On 19 Feb 2012, at 13:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > > > > On 18 Feb 2012, at 16:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > from the report: > > > > > There were a total of 20 people who participated in the Survey which > ran for 24 hours from when it was published. > > > > That is perhaps 10% of the IGF list population. > > This may be so but it's better. than nothing. . This was largely > spontaneous and this was mentioned in the report. As a matter of there were > some discussions on the Skype and also on the pirate pad about the various > suggestions from those that were present in the Open MAG consultations on > possible themes etc. There were a few members who suggested alternative > themes. > > > > We thought that it would be fun to put these to the list for comments to > get a "feel" of what they thought. > > > > In a self-selection poll I think the most significant discovery about > this poll is how few of us took part. > > And I think it is a fact that should have been noted in the discussion. > > > > On average for any email thread to be sent to the list, you can get 5 to > 10 responding to the thread in a single day depending on how interested the > participants are. For a 24 hour span to get 20 people to respond is ok even > if it were spontaneous. For the future, yes more time can be given to > enable many more to participate but I think we had a good cross section of > people from all the regions in the world. > > > > As for myself, i got to questions i could not answer, e.g. what regional > IGF am I part of, and never completed the poll. > > > > There were a few people that left this blank. > > > > That is often a problem with untested polls, the questions being asked > don't often work and leave a poll taker confused about what to answer. > > When in doubt leave it blank or simply put your comment. > > > > I think polling can be a very valid opinion gathering technique, but i > think that quickie polls that aren't tested and receive little > participation are marginal in their utility. > > > > Hmmm I differ in opinion. It is far better to at least engage with the > list and guage what they are feeling rather than not engage them at all. In > any event, there is always room for improvement. If you would like to > suggest pointers for improvement, feel free to initiate something. > > > > avri > > > > > > 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 > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > 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 Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 19 14:25:38 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:25:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council Panel on FX and the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <008c01cce78e$0ee59140$2cb0b3c0$@apc.org> Message-ID: The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the Agenda: See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet. "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council for the first time. On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and > use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that > there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the > years. > > We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put > together a first draft for others to comment. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > >> Dear Robert, >> >> What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? Kindly >> do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. >> >> Best wishes & regards >> Shahzad >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra >> wrote: >> >> > Brett, >> > >> > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum >> should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that >> was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this >> past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and >> it was not accepted. >> > >> > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the >> meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes >> at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >> > is still being discussed. >> > >> > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort >> is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >> > >> > regards >> > >> > Robert >> > >> > >> > -- >> > R. Guerra >> > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> > >> > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >> > >> >> Thanks Joy, >> >> >> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the >> High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb >> 29). >> >> >> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the >> realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil >> society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with >> confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the >> broader constellation of human rights. >> >> >> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations >> can be found here: >> >> >> >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >> >> >> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the >> actual Panel. >> >> >> >> Brett >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Brett Solomon >> >> Executive Director | Access >> >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >> >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> >> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights >> Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >> >> >> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >> the panel event. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >> Rue. >> >> >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >> possible. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> >> >> Project Coordinator >> >> >> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >> >> >> >> www.apc.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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 15:00:48 2012 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:00:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know Message-ID: Hey everyone, I just noticed this article on Mashable where Google was caught Tracking Safari Users (including myself): http://iuvo.me/w11tzK Some sort of cookies trick... quoting: "Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, and this > might qualify" > Cheers from cold snowy Lebanon... All the best, Bernard. - Bernard SADAKA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Sun Feb 19 15:52:34 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:52:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F416112.2010606@eff.org> Here is EFF analysis: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/time-make-amends-google-circumvents-privacy-settings-safari-users On 2/19/12 12:00 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just noticed this article on Mashable where Google was caught > Tracking Safari Users (including myself): http://iuvo.me/w11tzK > Some sort of cookies trick... > quoting: > > "Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, > and this might qualify" > > > Cheers from cold snowy Lebanon... > > All the best, > Bernard. > - > Bernard SADAKA > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 15:57:25 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:57:25 +1200 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very interesting Bernard. I like how the Swedish Government first asks you whether you consent to allowing them to store cookies. On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just noticed this article on Mashable where Google was caught Tracking > Safari Users (including myself): http://iuvo.me/w11tzK > Some sort of cookies trick... > quoting: > > "Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, and this >> might qualify" >> > > Cheers from cold snowy Lebanon... > > All the best, > Bernard. > - > Bernard SADAKA > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 19 16:44:51 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:44:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <99DEBE7F-91BC-4990-80B9-A41F88DB4703@acm.org> Message-ID: On 19 Feb 2012, at 14:04, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Two points: >> >> - to not indicate how how small a percentage of people answered the poll in its documentation seems dishonest to me. >> > It was mentioned in the report that 20 people participated. This is paragraph 3 of page 4 of the Report. Percentages revolve around this number. So if you see 10%,it simply means 10% of 20 which is 2. That is 10% of the subscribers to the list. 20 people of approx. 200 on the list. That is what it should say in the document. that is if you are sure only those subscribed to the list took the poll. I find it hard to beleive you did not understand this point since I explicitely said: >>> That is perhaps 10% of the IGF list population. In the previous message you responded to. > >> - for IGC to put out such information as somehow representing the view of IGC, puts IGC in a poor light. > > There is nothing sinister and people are educated enough to know that it is only a sample space. I did not say sinister - though I have nothing against left handed people, being one myself. Putting words in other people's mouth is a frequent polemic (sometimes even considered slanderous) technique, but I deny these words. i said it puts the IGC in a bad light. > >> So I recommend editing the documentation and recommend against passing this on as anything other than the opinion of 20 self selected individuals. > > The Survey was open to all the list and the list was invited to participate. People exercise their right to choose to participate. > In fact it was open to anyone who read the list or found out about the poll from someone else who read the list. Is there a way to know it was list participants who took the poll. And that they took it just once? And is there a way to know it was members (people who have accepted the charter)? Also, in almost all cases, 24 hours is considered way too short for a poll to be valid. For even rough consensus call, the charter calls for a 48 hour process: " When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. " I think it is meaningless. And to put it forward as having meaning is an error in my opinion. BTW, it we are going to restrict ourselves to the false choices that were put forward by the 2011 MAG, i agree with the choice made by most of the self selected group, but that is totally beside the point. The IGC, if it wants to have a respected voice, has to behave seriously and has to not pretend to have caucus support when there is no way of knowing whether it has caucus support or not.. avri Note: I should probably stop responding to your messages on this topic, next thing I know I will be accused of breaking the rule about repetitive posting. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 19 17:30:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:30:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <99DEBE7F-91BC-4990-80B9-A41F88DB4703@acm.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 19 Feb 2012, at 14:04, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > >> Two points: > >> > >> - to not indicate how how small a percentage of people answered the > poll in its documentation seems dishonest to me. > >> > > It was mentioned in the report that 20 people participated. This is > paragraph 3 of page 4 of the Report. Percentages revolve around this > number. So if you see 10%,it simply means 10% of 20 which is 2. > [You implied and insinuated through your comment that we did not indicate how small a percentage of people answered the poll. I responded to say that we advised that 20 people took part.] > > > That is 10% of the subscribers to the list. 20 people of approx. 200 on > the list. That is what it should say in the document. > that is if you are sure only those subscribed to the list took the poll. > > I find it hard to beleive you did not understand this point since I > explicitely said: > > >>> That is perhaps 10% of the IGF list population. > I did not to this as I am not debating that it is a small sample space. I responded to the insinuation of "dishonest". > > In the previous message you responded to. > > > > > >> - for IGC to put out such information as somehow representing the view > of IGC, puts IGC in a poor light. > > > > There is nothing sinister and people are educated enough to know that it > is only a sample space. > > I did not say sinister - though I have nothing against left handed people, > being one myself. Putting words in other people's mouth is a frequent > polemic (sometimes even considered slanderous) technique, but I deny these > words. > > > i said it puts the IGC in a bad light. > > > > >> So I recommend editing the documentation and recommend against passing > this on as anything other than the opinion of 20 self selected individuals. > > > > The Survey was open to all the list and the list was invited to > participate. People exercise their right to choose to participate. > > > > > In fact it was open to anyone who read the list or found out about the > poll from someone else who read the list. > > Is there a way to know it was list participants who took the poll. And > that they took it just once? > And is there a way to know it was members (people who have accepted the > charter)? > > We trust that members on the list behave ethically and would only fill this in once. We give them this benefit of the doubt. This is not the US elections by the way, just a simple poll to assess what the general feel was over the various themes that were discussed during the MAG Open consultations. It is not meant to be relied on but serves to help us to see how some of our members viewed the various themes. > > > > I think it is meaningless. And to put it forward as having meaning is an > error in my opinion. > > Everything to do with this poll remains an opinion and there is nothing wrong with having a diversity of opinions. BTW, it we are going to restrict ourselves to the false choices that were > put forward by the 2011 MAG, i agree with the choice made by most of the > self selected group, but that is totally beside the point. The false choices that you refer to are what was discussed during the MAG open consultations that were floating around the Group Skype, pirate pad of what others outside the IGC were putting forward. We added some choices that members came up with. > The IGC, if it wants to have a respected voice, has to behave seriously > and has to not pretend to have caucus support when there is no way of > knowing whether it has caucus support or not.. > > I think you are making a mountain our of a molehill in this instance. > > avri > > Note: I should probably stop responding to your messages on this topic, > next thing I know I will be accused of breaking the rule about repetitive > posting. > You are free to post and we welcome your views. By the way I am editing the Report to eliminate the conversation and we are not as pedantic as you think we are. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 19 17:52:08 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:52:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <99DEBE7F-91BC-4990-80B9-A41F88DB4703@acm.org> Message-ID: > > Also, in almost all cases, 24 hours is considered way too short for a poll > to be valid. For even rough consensus call, the charter calls for a 48 > hour process: > > " > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough > consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus > decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours > of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a > rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. > " > > The Charter (I have only coped the relevant sections) sets out the rule on consensus and is as follows: *The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. Statements and representation at meetings Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision procedure outlined above will be required.* [The distinction here is that the 48 hour rule is only in play when there is sufficient time. As the themes were being developed and submitted by various quarters at the MAG Open Consultations and the meetings were immediate, we wanted to quickly get a feel of the views of the list. Hence the 24 hours, which is completely within this exception] * However, there will be occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that require a very quick response. In these cases, while it is still required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when necessary: The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available.* [This seems to be our situation in this instance. However, in this instance, we are not making any statement. We merely want to see how the IGC felt about the themes] *In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of those members who are physically present at the meeting.* [The Poll was designed to scope the feeling of members who were not physically present at the meeting. It is reasonable to assume that this is how the list thought, even if it were only 20 who answered. In fact 20 answering in a 24 hour call from various parts of the world is significant in my view. People who participated in poll can maybe respond to the email and say "I took part" if that will pacify concerns. In the future, we can work out ways of improving the way it was conducted, hence my invitation to you to help us come up with a solution.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Feb 19 17:59:59 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:59:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft IGC Statement on Remote Participation [URGENT CALL FOR COMMENTS] In-Reply-To: <4DC80703-C30C-419E-8F59-629A1DAFCD42@psg.com> References: <4DC80703-C30C-419E-8F59-629A1DAFCD42@psg.com> Message-ID: On 20/02/2012, at 1:47 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > is there a reason that does not seem to be linked to our IGC system accounts? Yes technical reasons, it runs on Wordpress. It may be possible to link it in, but it's not a priority because you can add comments without logging in or registering. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 The global voice for consumers: www.consumersinternational.org Connect with CI: Twitter @ConsumersInt | http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Help CI stay in touch: please also add ConsumersInternational at sut1.co.uk to your safe sender list 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 Sun Feb 19 18:18:04 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:18:04 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, I would like to apologise to the list for the shortcomings of the Survey that was carried out and solely take full responsibility. In the future to ensure that these shortcomings are confined, I will use the * http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey * This will mean that each member will actually get the form sent to your account with your name on it. I also thank Avri and Chris for raising the shortcomings of the poll. Sala On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > We are pleased to announce the results of the Survey that was held > recently. The Survey is attached. We thank all who participated. > > Kind Regards, > > Fatima Cambronero, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amalidesilva at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 18:22:44 2012 From: amalidesilva at yahoo.com (Amali De Silva) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:22:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] new proposals for UN governance has impact for IT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1329693764.30640.YahooMailNeo@web112302.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> New proposal for UN governance – has impact for IT governance My father ( from Sri Lanka )  wants to share these articles with you and any institutions and individuals you think interested / relevant. These are not my own opinions. First article UN reform; of relevance to the first is the second article.   http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=45576 http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=45077 Best wishes, Amali     Amali De Silva - Mitchell Vancouver BC Canada   Former President Vancouver Community Network, participant at UN WSIS Private & Confidential   ________________________________ >  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Feb 19 18:40:31 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:40:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Perhaps nearer the time, when people know what their plans are, it might be possible to put together a list of IGC volunteers? I've acted as a remote moderator at several meetings I've attended over the last two or three years, and was very grateful "in" Nairobi to the remote moderators of the sessions I attended, who acted as intermediaries for my comments and questions. My sense is that Marilia and Ginger are, or can indicate, the organisers. And thank you Google - and Robert - I think that must have happened while the transcript wasn't working. And about the statement - Izumi put it together in a hurry originally from his own ideas and from various suggestions offered by both physically present and remote participants. He offered the statement as coming from himself, but the issue was felt to be sufficiently important that the IGC should itself prepare a statement. I had contributed one of the points raised, and subsequently did a little cosmetic editing. Izumi did the hard work. Deirdre On 19 February 2012 12:21, Robert Guerra wrote: > In regards to remote participation, there are efforts underway for IGF > 2012 for improve the situation. > > Not sure some of you caught it, but during the Open MAG meeting this past > week in Geneva Google mentioned that they were going to be supporting the > IGF Secretariat in the months to come. It was specifically mentioned that > they are making a contribution to the IGF fund and would like to work with > them to improve the virtual participation of the Open Meetings and IGF as a > whole. > > There's defiantly a need to strategically improve the remote participation > modalities at the IGF and its related preparatory meetings (Open > Consultation, MAG meetings, etc). Both volunteer and professional > assistance, in my opinion, is most welcome . > > What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - well, hopefully > we'll find out soon from the Secretariat and/or Google. > > regards > > Robert > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-19, at 6:13 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 19/02/2012, at 8:50 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Dear all, > > I have included the main points of this discussions (ex: preparatory > meetings conducted online, etc) among my contributions to the next meeting > of the WG on IGF improvements. I have also mentioned the workshop on RP and > the main principles that have been jointly drafted last year. I hope that > this is taken into account on the discussions. > > > Also this, which dates from 2008: > > http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > The plan was never implemented but we are still complaining about the same > deficiencies today. > > -- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 aizu at anr.org Mon Feb 20 01:21:13 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:21:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear list, I also feel responsible to our work, as co-coordinators, during the Open consultation and MAG meetings last week, in particular around the work of developing the theme and join the apology with Sala. In my view, we should have been better prepared. That could avoid some debates we just had around the questionnaire on main theme. We should have called for more opinions before the meeting and tried to put them into our own Statement and/or positions. For that I feel we are primary responsible. In view of the coming works, I like to take good lessons from these and make improvements for coming works. How to listen to the IGC members during the meetings and respond in the physical meeting while we have the List and Skype and other tools is both challenge and also opportunity. The questionnaire is one such effort and even though there are areas of improvement, as Avri pointed out, the intention is to make more voices be heard. I will try to bring some good discussion substance around the Remote Participation in to the CSTD WG meeting just starting today. Please read the "Chairman's draft recommendation" document I circulated and make any comments to the list to be transmitted to the meeting. I will try to report the substance of the meeting, as this is a "closed" meeting and there is no remote participation open, will be careful to not to "annotate", but will try my best, izumi 2012/2/20 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Dear All, > > I would like to apologise to the list for the shortcomings of the Survey > that was carried out and solely take full responsibility. In the future to > ensure that these shortcomings are confined, I will use the > http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey > > This will mean that each member will actually get the form sent to your > account with your name on it. I also thank Avri and Chris for raising the > shortcomings of the poll. > > Sala > > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> We are pleased to announce the results of the Survey that was held >> recently. The Survey is attached. We thank all who participated. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Fatima Cambronero, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 sdkaaa at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 01:32:53 2012 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:32:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thx Katitza :) Yes Sala and the UK has a super system: http://iuvo.me/z2z8SG :P All the best, Bernard. - Bernard SADAKA On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Very interesting Bernard. I like how the Swedish Government first asks you > whether you consent to allowing them to store cookies. > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > >> Hey everyone, >> >> I just noticed this article on Mashable where Google was caught Tracking >> Safari Users (including myself): http://iuvo.me/w11tzK >> Some sort of cookies trick... >> quoting: >> >> "Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, and this >>> might qualify" >>> >> >> Cheers from cold snowy Lebanon... >> >> All the best, >> Bernard. >> - >> Bernard SADAKA >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 01:48:38 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:48:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Katitza and that was an interesting link Bernard. This is an analysis that I found on the Internet see: http://www.chiefprivacyofficers.com/1/post/2010/07/analysis-of-the-ec-cookie-directive.htmlhttp://www.chiefprivacyofficers.com/1/post/2010/07/analysis-of-the-ec-cookie-directive.html I wonder if the Cookie Directive 2009/136/EC has been revised. ** On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Thx Katitza :) > Yes Sala and the UK has a super system: http://iuvo.me/z2z8SG :P > > All the best, > Bernard. > - > Bernard SADAKA > > > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Very interesting Bernard. I like how the Swedish Government first asks >> you whether you consent to allowing them to store cookies. >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: >> >>> Hey everyone, >>> >>> I just noticed this article on Mashable where Google was caught Tracking >>> Safari Users (including myself): http://iuvo.me/w11tzK >>> Some sort of cookies trick... >>> quoting: >>> >>> "Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, and this >>>> might qualify" >>>> >>> >>> Cheers from cold snowy Lebanon... >>> >>> All the best, >>> Bernard. >>> - >>> Bernard SADAKA >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 01:50:19 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:50:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Directive is accessible via http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:337:0011:0036:En:PDF On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Katitza and that was an interesting link Bernard. This is an > analysis that I found on the Internet see: > > > http://www.chiefprivacyofficers.com/1/post/2010/07/analysis-of-the-ec-cookie-directive.htmlhttp://www.chiefprivacyofficers.com/1/post/2010/07/analysis-of-the-ec-cookie-directive.html > > I wonder if the Cookie Directive 2009/136/EC has been revised. ** > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > >> Thx Katitza :) >> Yes Sala and the UK has a super system: http://iuvo.me/z2z8SG :P >> >> All the best, >> Bernard. >> - >> Bernard SADAKA >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Very interesting Bernard. I like how the Swedish Government first asks >>> you whether you consent to allowing them to store cookies. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: >>> >>>> Hey everyone, >>>> >>>> I just noticed this article on Mashable where Google was caught >>>> Tracking Safari Users (including myself): http://iuvo.me/w11tzK >>>> Some sort of cookies trick... >>>> quoting: >>>> >>>> "Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, and >>>>> this might qualify" >>>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers from cold snowy Lebanon... >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> Bernard. >>>> - >>>> Bernard SADAKA >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 01:52:34 2012 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:52:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ty All the best, Bernard. - Bernard SADAKA On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > The Directive is accessible via > > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:337:0011:0036:En:PDF > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Katitza and that was an interesting link Bernard. This is an >> analysis that I found on the Internet see: >> >> >> http://www.chiefprivacyofficers.com/1/post/2010/07/analysis-of-the-ec-cookie-directive.htmlhttp://www.chiefprivacyofficers.com/1/post/2010/07/analysis-of-the-ec-cookie-directive.html >> >> I wonder if the Cookie Directive 2009/136/EC has been revised. ** >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: >> >>> Thx Katitza :) >>> Yes Sala and the UK has a super system: http://iuvo.me/z2z8SG :P >>> >>> All the best, >>> Bernard. >>> - >>> Bernard SADAKA >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Very interesting Bernard. I like how the Swedish Government first asks >>>> you whether you consent to allowing them to store cookies. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I just noticed this article on Mashable where Google was caught >>>>> Tracking Safari Users (including myself): http://iuvo.me/w11tzK >>>>> Some sort of cookies trick... >>>>> quoting: >>>>> >>>>> "Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, and >>>>>> this might qualify" >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers from cold snowy Lebanon... >>>>> >>>>> All the best, >>>>> Bernard. >>>>> - >>>>> Bernard SADAKA >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 02:12:55 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:12:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Coordinators and All Members With reference to the context; discussion and objections on designing and conducting the Survey for a common statement and Balloting for voting my recommendations are as follows:   1.    Prior to conduct any survey/ balloting, the Mailing List and Voting members should be intimated in-time and encouraged and asked to suggest that what items should be (and/or what should not be) inclusive in the survey and/or ballot. 2.    Survey should have some additional input fields to provide more opportunities to obtain inputs and ideas for every kind and every level of users while they are attempting to answer limited pre-written fields. 3.    During the survey/ balloting the user should be provided with the option to disagree with all of the contents, overall theme or the list of candidate to vote for. In case of disagreement, user may be provided fields (text box) to endorse the statement and reason of the conflict or disagreement. 4.   The conflicts, disagreements and/or submitting alternate ideas, inputs should also be considered while preparing the final report.   With reference to the modification in the IGC Charter, requirement for the modification of the charter were established due to conflicts of opinions but the call for the support was conducted properly or at least as per the required tradition of the list. That is why the members of the list who could not understand their part in the participation of charter modification did not come up to complete the minimum strength of 10 members, even they agree with the points/lines/procedures to be modified. It should not the responsibility of the person who has the conflict of the opinion to arrange the supporting votes to complete the minimum required strength. Thinking from a different angle, if someone has 10 members, he can make any of the positive or negative changes in the IGC Charter. Rather than it should be responsibility of the coordinators to encourage list / voting members to participate in the charter modification process to make the procedures in a better form. So, my recommendations are as follows:   1.    Upon the establishment of requirement for the modification of the charter, coordinators should submit a call for the volunteers to meet the minimum required strength, and to give their opinion in favor or against the proposed modification, to make the procedures in a better form and in maximum elaborated format. 2.    If someone suggest the modification or point-out any problem, conflict or lacking of any SOP, it should be the primary responsibility of the coordinators to satisfy him and they should invite the comments from the list for the rectification of the conflict or the problem (it-self) rather than pointing-out/ highlighting the person who raised the objection.   Thanking you and Best Regards  Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ >From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 4:18 >Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] > > >Dear All, > >I would like to apologise to the list for the shortcomings of the Survey that was carried out and solely take full responsibility. In the future to ensure that these shortcomings are confined, I will use the http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey > >This will mean that each member will actually get the form sent to your account with your name on it. I also thank Avri and Chris for raising the shortcomings of the poll. > >Sala > > >On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >Dear All, >> >>We are pleased to announce the results of the Survey that was held recently. The Survey is attached. We thank all who participated. >> >>Kind Regards, >> >>Fatima Cambronero, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> >> >> >> > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >Tweeter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 02:37:23 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:37:23 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Coordinators and All Members > Thank you Imran for taking the time to give the list feedback and recommendations. They are much appreciated. Some comments are inline. With reference to the context; discussion and objections on designing and > conducting the Survey for a common statement and Balloting for voting my > recommendations are as follows: > ** ** > 1. Prior to conduct any survey/ balloting, the Mailing List and Voting > members should be intimated in-time and encouraged and asked to suggest > that what items should be (and/or what should not be) inclusive in the > survey and/or ballot. > The Charter creates an exception for the waiver of the 48 hour rule, I have highlighted the relevant bits see below: "The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. Statements and representation at meetings. Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that require a *very quick response*. In these cases, while it is still required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when necessary: The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of those members who are physically present at the meeting. If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another participant of such events. This delegation should, if possible, be made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be prepared and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as appropriate. Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the caucus in the past. Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as soon after their presentation as possible. > **** > 2. Survey should have some additional input fields to provide more > opportunities to obtain inputs and ideas for every kind and every level of > users while they are attempting to answer limited pre-written fields. > I agree. > **** > 3. During the survey/ balloting the user should be provided with the > option to disagree with all of the contents, overall theme or the list of > candidate to vote for. In case of disagreement, user may be provided fields > (text box) to endorse the statement and reason of the conflict or > disagreement. > I cannot comment on the balloting but you can raise that with the Charter Review Working Group. However in relation to the Survey, absolutely. This was provided through the No Option and "Alternative Suggestion" Text option where people could give their comments and some people did use this. > 4. The conflicts, disagreements and/or submitting alternate ideas, > inputs should also be considered while preparing the final report. > If you read the report, we did not amend nor vary people's comments but > placed them as they were answered in the fields. Diversity of ideas is > important and fully agree. However, if one does not participate, one's > views is not factored in. I have discovered that the IGC website has its > own lime survey so we will be using this in the future. > > With reference to the modification in the IGC Charter, > I will forward your comments on Charter modification to the Working Group that is looking into this. I will not comment on Charter modification until the WG has carried out its review and asks for public comments from the list. Suffice to say there is a working group that is reviewing the Charter. If you are not already a member and desire to be a part it, feel free to send Jeremy an email to join. > > **Thanking you and Best Regards ** > Imran Ahmed Shah > > *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Sent:* Monday, 20 February 2012, 4:18 > *Subject:* [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] > > Dear All, > > I would like to apologise to the list for the shortcomings of the Survey > that was carried out and solely take full responsibility. In the future to > ensure that these shortcomings are confined, I will use the * > http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey > * > This will mean that each member will actually get the form sent to your > account with your name on it. I also thank Avri and Chris for raising the > shortcomings of the poll. > > Sala > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > We are pleased to announce the results of the Survey that was held > recently. The Survey is attached. We thank all who participated. > > Kind Regards, > > Fatima Cambronero, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de Mon Feb 20 02:58:30 2012 From: sandra.hoferichter at freenet.de (sandra hoferichter) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:58:30 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! In-Reply-To: References: <1329551025.4f3f56b140f5f@gold.itu.ch> <4f3fc7e2.ee48b40a.74f0.3315SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <00be01ccefa5$702a6290$507f27b0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> Dear Wilson et all, due to a technical error the application for the fellowship programme was blocked. It is fixed now, please visit www.euro-ssig.eu and apply now until 15th April. Best Sandra -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Wilson Abigaba [mailto:wilson at internetsociety.ug] Gesendet: Montag, 20. Februar 2012 06:34 An: sandra hoferichter Betreff: Re: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! Hi Sandra, I think Karim was asking about the fellowship program for developing countries. On the website, it says the fellowship application period has finished yet it look it was never advertised because he always follows the ESSIG website. Kindly advise please about the fellowship program. On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 18:43, sandra hoferichter wrote: > Dear Karim, it will take place from 22-28 July 2012. > Best Sandra > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von > karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int > Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Februar 2012 08:44 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; sandra hoferichter > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance > (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! > > Dear Sandra, > > Thank you for this information. > Sandra from which periode the fellowship programme was taken place. > I'll always follow ESSIG web site but I did not see it. > > Thank you > > Karim, Comoros > > Quoting sandra hoferichter : > >> >> For the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow: Learning in a Multi >> Stakeholder Environment >> >> >> Meissen / Germany, 22-28 July 2012 >> >> >> Do you want to understand the multilayer, multi player mechanisms of >> Internet Governance? Do you want to know what the political, economic, >> social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you want >> to learn what is behind cryptic acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, ccTLD, >> gTLD, iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, W3C, IAB, WHOIS, GAC, IGF, WGIG and WSIS? >> Do want to get more detailed information about technical Internet >> standards, protocols, codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries >> and registrars? Are you interested to look deeper into the >> opportunities and risks of the emerging global Internet Economy? Do >> you want to become an Internet Governance leader of tomorrow? >> >> Than you should apply for the “2012 European Summer School on Internet >> Governance” (EuroSSIG). The 2012 Summer School offers a unique >> multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The >> programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with >> world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well >> known experts working directly in the technical community, the market >> or in policy. It offers unique opportunities for learning in a multi >> stakeholder environment, which includes also intense and individual >> interactive communication with faculty members and fellows from all >> over the world. The faculty is chaired by Prof. >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus . >> >> Applications will be accepted both from students and individuals >> working in the private sector, in government or in civil society >> groups from all over the world. Application criteria are a basic >> academic degree or relevant practical experiences. >> >> The course fee is 1000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the >> lecture >> programme: >> >> *     six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy, >> *     breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, >> *     one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory”, >> *     gala dinner in the historic wine restaurant “Vincenz Richter”, >> *     boat trip on the river Elbe >> *     free WiFi access and >> *     all teaching material. >> >> There is a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). >> We can offer students from developing countries an opportunity to >> apply for the fellowship programme. >> >> If you are interested in the European Summer School on Internet >> Governance (EuroSSIG), please send applications until  15 April 2012 >> by using the >> > plenar y/application-form> online application form on the website or >> contacting directly >> > Intern et%20Governance> Sandra Hoferichter the coordinator of the >> Summer School. >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Feb 20 03:07:13 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:07:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1329725233.6467.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Hi, I also have indicated about this issue, just for reference for those who are interested in Cyber Information Security: 1.  [A REPORT ON GLOBAL NET NEUTRALITY ISSUE] http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/a-report-on-global-net-neutrality-issue   and also have uploaded another blog post 2.  [Why do you demand - "Information Sharing"?] http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/profiles/blogs/why-do-you-needt-information-sharing   Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ >From: Bernard Sadaka >To: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 11:52 >Subject: Re: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know > > >ty > > >All the best, >Bernard. >- >Bernard SADAKA > > > > >On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >The Directive is accessible via >>http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:337:0011:0036:En:PDF >> >> >> >> >>On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>Thanks Katitza and that was an interesting link Bernard. This is an analysis that I found on the Internet see: >>> >>> http://www.chiefprivacyofficers.com/1/post/2010/07/analysis-of-the-ec-cookie-directive.htmlhttp://www.chiefprivacyofficers.com/1/post/2010/07/analysis-of-the-ec-cookie-directive.html >>> >>>I wonder if the Cookie Directive 2009/136/EC has been revised. >>> >>> >>> >>>On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: >>> >>>Thx Katitza :) >>>>Yes Sala and the UK has a super system: http://iuvo.me/z2z8SG :P >>>> >>>> >>>>All the best, >>>>Bernard. >>>>- >>>>Bernard SADAKA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>>Very interesting Bernard. I like how the Swedish Government first asks you whether you consent to allowing them to store cookies. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Hey everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>>I just noticed this article on Mashable where Google was caught Tracking Safari Users (including myself): http://iuvo.me/w11tzK >>>>>>Some sort of cookies trick... >>>>>>quoting: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>"Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, and this might qualify" >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Cheers from cold snowy Lebanon... >>>>>> >>>>>>All the best, >>>>>>Bernard. >>>>>>- >>>>>>Bernard SADAKA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>> >>>>>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> >>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >> >>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> >>Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 20 04:06:11 2012 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:06:11 +0100 Subject: and what about Apple which left apps to get addresses book's user ? Re: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C011DD5-4020-41EF-B28E-D628B5EA6664@noos.fr> Hi, Also, two week ago it was revealed that Apple's smart phones permit apps to obtain the users' addresses book ! How can we trust IT companies ' ways of innovations today if they have NO sense of any values?? that is criminal. Do we have to loose our time to complain every 6 months on new IT/criminal practices from dominant IT companies ! ! and to ask legislators to intervene such as with the European commission's opportune legislative proposal for in particular "privacy by default" (which will take another 2 years to be adopted along with democratic procedures) ! and to debate and promote world meeting's theme on IT and human rights ! Will FTC in the US will take 2 years, as in the Facebook and Google cases, to obtain fair practices and to put Apple, under scrutiny for 20 years ! http://www.pcworld.com/article/250078/apple_apps_that_take_your_contact_info_are_in_violation_fix_coming_soon.html Best Marie GEORGES Le 20 févr. 2012 à 07:50, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro a écrit : > The Directive is accessible via > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:337:0011:0036:En:PDF > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thanks Katitza and that was an interesting link Bernard. This is an analysis that I found on the Internet see: > > http://www.chiefprivacyofficers.com/1/post/2010/07/analysis-of-the-ec-cookie-directive.htmlhttp://www.chiefprivacyofficers.com/1/post/2010/07/analysis-of-the-ec-cookie-directive.html > > I wonder if the Cookie Directive 2009/136/EC has been revised. > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Thx Katitza :) > Yes Sala and the UK has a super system: http://iuvo.me/z2z8SG :P > > All the best, > Bernard. > - > Bernard SADAKA > > > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Very interesting Bernard. I like how the Swedish Government first asks you whether you consent to allowing them to store cookies. > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just noticed this article on Mashable where Google was caught Tracking Safari Users (including myself): http://iuvo.me/w11tzK > Some sort of cookies trick... > quoting: > > "Google is under close watch by the FTC for privacy violations, and this might qualify" > > Cheers from cold snowy Lebanon... > > All the best, > Bernard. > - > Bernard SADAKA > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 04:55:19 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:55:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1329731719.15011.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Sala, With reference to following suggestions for which (I think) you have tried to convince me about existence of the provisioning of time relaxation etc... I did not mentioned any single instance or case. So, there was no needed to explain.   I submitted these suggestions to follow onward by the IGC-CS as the good/common practices and as a tradition (you can also say SOP).   Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ >From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >To: Imran Ahmed Shah >Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; "Imran @IGFPak.org" >Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 12:37 >Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] > > > > > >On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >Dear Coordinators and All Members >> > >Thank you Imran for taking the time to give the list feedback and recommendations. They are much appreciated. Some comments are inline. > > >With reference to the context; discussion and objections on designing and conducting the Survey for a common statement and Balloting for voting my recommendations are as follows: >>  >>1.    Prior to conduct any survey/ balloting, the Mailing List and Voting members should be intimated in-time and encouraged and asked to suggest that what items should be (and/or what should not be) inclusive in the survey and/or ballot. >The Charter creates an exception for the waiver of the 48 hour rule, I have highlighted the relevant bits see below: > >"The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. > >When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. >Statements and representation at meetings. > >Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be discussed and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision procedure outlined above will be required. However, there will be occasions when members of the caucus will be attending meetings and will be presented with the opportunity to make statements that require a very quick response. In these cases, while it is still required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement and its contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when necessary: >The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. >In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of those members who are physically present at the meeting. >If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in face-to-face meetings, they will delegate coordination to another participant of such events. This delegation should, if possible, be made before the meeting and with the advice of the caucus. >Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be prepared and coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as appropriate. >Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic principles of Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular.Such statements will try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed general thinking of the caucus, based on past discussions and documents, and should not contradict the positions taken by the caucus in the past. >Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, preferably before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as soon after their presentation as possible. >  >2.    Survey should have some additional input fields to provide more opportunities to obtain inputs and ideas for every kind and every level of users while they are attempting to answer limited pre-written fields. >I agree. > >3.    During the survey/ balloting the user should be provided with the option to disagree with all of the contents, overall theme or the list of candidate to vote for. In case of disagreement, user may be provided fields (text box) to endorse the statement and reason of the conflict or disagreement. >I cannot comment on the balloting but you can raise that with the Charter Review Working Group. However in relation to the Survey, absolutely. This was provided through the No Option and "Alternative Suggestion" Text option where people could give their comments and some people did use this. > >4.   The conflicts, disagreements and/or submitting alternate ideas, inputs should also be considered while preparing the final report. >>If you read the report, we did not amend nor vary people's comments but placed them as they were answered in the fields. Diversity of ideas is important and fully agree. However, if one does not participate, one's views is not factored in. I have discovered that the IGC website has its own lime survey so we will be using this in the future. >> > >With reference to the modification in the IGC Charter, > >I will forward your comments on Charter modification to the Working Group that is looking into this. I will not comment on Charter modification until the WG has carried out its review and asks for public comments from the list. Suffice to say there is a working group that is reviewing the Charter. If you are not already a member and desire to be a part it, feel free to send Jeremy an email to join. >  > >> >>Thanking you and Best Regards  >>Imran Ahmed Shah >> >>From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 4:18 >>>Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] >>> >>> >>> >>>Dear All, >>> >>>I would like to apologise to the list for the shortcomings of the Survey that was carried out and solely take full responsibility. In the future to ensure that these shortcomings are confined, I will use the http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey >>> >>>This will mean that each member will actually get the form sent to your account with your name on it. I also thank Avri and Chris for raising the shortcomings of the poll. >>> >>>Sala >>> >>> >>>On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>Dear All, >>>> >>>>We are pleased to announce the results of the Survey that was held recently. The Survey is attached. We thank all who participated. >>>> >>>>Kind Regards, >>>> >>>>Fatima Cambronero, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> >>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >Tweeter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Feb 20 04:58:01 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:58:01 +0200 Subject: and what about Apple which left apps to get addresses book's user ? Re: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: <1C011DD5-4020-41EF-B28E-D628B5EA6664@noos.fr> References: <1C011DD5-4020-41EF-B28E-D628B5EA6664@noos.fr> Message-ID: <4F421929.4070202@digsys.bg> On 20.02.12 11:06, Marie GEORGES wrote: > > Do we have to loose our time to complain every 6 months on new > IT/criminal practices from dominant IT companies ! ! The problem is, that most infringements are in fact done by small companies. As is the case with Apple's platform -- Apple by default has access to your address book -- in general, if you don't like that you don't buy their devices. The only "safe" way is if you build your own devices, but this is beyond the capabilities of most of the population so they settle for some level of trust -- to their mobile device vendor, to their communications company and for their software services. But, it is entirely possible and perhaps the way those companies conduct their business to use a "fuse" company, who will publish the rogue application -- so that it can steal your data and give it in hands of someone else, be it Google, BBC, Procter & Gamble (to name just few), or perhaps in the hands of those non-existent US and elsewhere "secret service" para-governmental structures. In the not so politicaly correct speech, we call all those collectively "The Mafia". Trouble is, that one trades their privacy in exchange for the convenience of communication. This has been so always in human society, not something recent with computers, mobile devices and the Internet. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 05:04:44 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:04:44 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: <1329731719.15011.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329731719.15011.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Imran. As promised your comments on the Charter review has been forwarded to Jeremy who is part of the Charter Review. Have a great day! Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Sala, > With reference to following suggestions for which (I think) you have tried > to convince me about existence of the provisioning of time relaxation etc... > I did not mentioned any single instance or case. So, there was no needed to > explain. > > I submitted these suggestions to follow onward by the IGC-CS as the > good/common practices and as a tradition (you can also say SOP). > > Thanks > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: Imran Ahmed Shah > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; "Imran > @IGFPak.org" > Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 12:37 > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Dear Coordinators and All Members > > > Thank you Imran for taking the time to give the list feedback and > recommendations. They are much appreciated. Some comments are inline. > > With reference to the context; discussion and objections on designing and > conducting the Survey for a common statement and Balloting for voting my > recommendations are as follows: > > 1.    Prior to conduct any survey/ balloting, the Mailing List and Voting > members should be intimated in-time and encouraged and asked to suggest that > what items should be (and/or what should not be) inclusive in the survey > and/or ballot. > > The Charter creates an exception for the waiver of the 48 hour rule, I have > highlighted the relevant bits see below: > > "The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When > complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly > empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the > IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC > appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having > been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after > a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. > > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus > call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on > the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final > discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough > consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. > Statements and representation at meetings. > > Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be discussed > and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision procedure outlined above > will be required. However, there will be occasions when members of the > caucus will be attending meetings and will be presented with the opportunity > to make statements that require a very quick response. In these cases, while > it is still required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement > and its contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when > necessary: > The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the caucus and > will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot be discussed by > the caucus within the time available. > In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with the > members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect the assumed > general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of those members who > are physically present at the meeting. > If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in face-to-face > meetings, they will delegate coordination to another participant of such > events. This delegation should, if possible, be made before the meeting and > with the advice of the caucus. > Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be prepared and > coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as appropriate. > Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic principles of > Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. Such statements will > try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed general thinking of the caucus, > based on past discussions and documents, and should not contradict the > positions taken by the caucus in the past. > Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, preferably > before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as soon after their > presentation as possible. > > > 2.    Survey should have some additional input fields to provide more > opportunities to obtain inputs and ideas for every kind and every level of > users while they are attempting to answer limited pre-written fields. > > I agree. > > 3.    During the survey/ balloting the user should be provided with the > option to disagree with all of the contents, overall theme or the list of > candidate to vote for. In case of disagreement, user may be provided fields > (text box) to endorse the statement and reason of the conflict or > disagreement. > > I cannot comment on the balloting but you can raise that with the Charter > Review Working Group. However in relation to the Survey, absolutely. This > was provided through the No Option and "Alternative Suggestion" Text option > where people could give their comments and some people did use this. > > 4.   The conflicts, disagreements and/or submitting alternate ideas, inputs > should also be considered while preparing the final report. > If you read the report, we did not amend nor vary people's comments but > placed them as they were answered in the fields. Diversity of ideas is > important and fully agree. However, if one does not participate, one's views > is not factored in. I have discovered that the IGC website has its own lime > survey so we will be using this in the future. > > > > With reference to the modification in the IGC Charter, > > > I will forward your comments on Charter modification to the Working Group > that is looking into this. I will not comment on Charter modification until > the WG has carried out its review and asks for public comments from the > list. Suffice to say there is a working group that is reviewing the Charter. > If you are not already a member and desire to be a part it, feel free to > send Jeremy an email to join. > > > > Thanking you and Best Regards > Imran Ahmed Shah > > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 4:18 > Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] > > Dear All, > > I would like to apologise to the list for the shortcomings of the Survey > that was carried out and solely take full responsibility. In the future to > ensure that these shortcomings are confined, I will use the > http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey > > This will mean that each member will actually get the form sent to your > account with your name on it. I also thank Avri and Chris for raising the > shortcomings of the poll. > > Sala > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear All, > > We are pleased to announce the results of the Survey that was held recently. > The Survey is attached. We thank all who participated. > > Kind Regards, > > Fatima Cambronero, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 05:12:42 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 02:12:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329731719.15011.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1329732762.37991.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Please also note that the provisioning of the Working Groups at Working Groups Page are representing wrong image as stated "inactive" and when click on them, it returned "Page not found". * IGC outreach working group (inactive) * IGC strategy working group (inactive) * IGC work-plan working group (inactive) * IGC charter review working group * IGC working group for CSTD issues (inactive)   Even, if there has been endorsed a disclaimer that "these groups do not have any formal authority under the IGC charter" , I would recommend to update these pages to inlude the list of the members of these WG till a certain date. As I remember, when the Working Groups were formed, the some of the members joined different WG.   So, the viewer of the IGC site/page would understand easily that who is the memebr of these WGs.   Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ >From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >To: Imran Ahmed Shah >Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; "Imran @IGFPak.org" >Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 15:04 >Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] > >Thanks Imran. As promised your comments on the Charter review has been >forwarded to Jeremy who is part of the Charter Review. > >Have a great day! >Sala > >On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> Dear Sala, >> With reference to following suggestions for which (I think) you have tried >> to convince me about existence of the provisioning of time relaxation etc... >> I did not mentioned any single instance or case. So, there was no needed to >> explain. >> >> I submitted these suggestions to follow onward by the IGC-CS as the >> good/common practices and as a tradition (you can also say SOP). >> >> Thanks >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> To: Imran Ahmed Shah >> Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; "Imran >> @IGFPak.org" >> Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 12:37 >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >> Dear Coordinators and All Members >> >> >> Thank you Imran for taking the time to give the list feedback and >> recommendations. They are much appreciated. Some comments are inline. >> >> With reference to the context; discussion and objections on designing and >> conducting the Survey for a common statement and Balloting for voting my >> recommendations are as follows: >> >> 1.    Prior to conduct any survey/ balloting, the Mailing List and Voting >> members should be intimated in-time and encouraged and asked to suggest that >> what items should be (and/or what should not be) inclusive in the survey >> and/or ballot. >> >> The Charter creates an exception for the waiver of the 48 hour rule, I have >> highlighted the relevant bits see below: >> >> "The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When >> complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly >> empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the >> IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC >> appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having >> been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after >> a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. >> >> When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus >> call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on >> the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final >> discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough >> consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. >> Statements and representation at meetings. >> >> Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be discussed >> and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision procedure outlined above >> will be required. However, there will be occasions when members of the >> caucus will be attending meetings and will be presented with the opportunity >> to make statements that require a very quick response. In these cases, while >> it is still required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement >> and its contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied when >> necessary: >> The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the caucus and >> will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot be discussed by >> the caucus within the time available. >> In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with the >> members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect the assumed >> general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of those members who >> are physically present at the meeting. >> If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in face-to-face >> meetings, they will delegate coordination to another participant of such >> events. This delegation should, if possible, be made before the meeting and >> with the advice of the caucus. >> Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be prepared and >> coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as appropriate. >> Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic principles of >> Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. Such statements will >> try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed general thinking of the caucus, >> based on past discussions and documents, and should not contradict the >> positions taken by the caucus in the past. >> Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, preferably >> before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as soon after their >> presentation as possible. >> >> >> 2.    Survey should have some additional input fields to provide more >> opportunities to obtain inputs and ideas for every kind and every level of >> users while they are attempting to answer limited pre-written fields. >> >> I agree. >> >> 3.    During the survey/ balloting the user should be provided with the >> option to disagree with all of the contents, overall theme or the list of >> candidate to vote for. In case of disagreement, user may be provided fields >> (text box) to endorse the statement and reason of the conflict or >> disagreement. >> >> I cannot comment on the balloting but you can raise that with the Charter >> Review Working Group. However in relation to the Survey, absolutely. This >> was provided through the No Option and "Alternative Suggestion" Text option >> where people could give their comments and some people did use this. >> >> 4.   The conflicts, disagreements and/or submitting alternate ideas, inputs >> should also be considered while preparing the final report. >> If you read the report, we did not amend nor vary people's comments but >> placed them as they were answered in the fields. Diversity of ideas is >> important and fully agree. However, if one does not participate, one's views >> is not factored in. I have discovered that the IGC website has its own lime >> survey so we will be using this in the future. >> >> >> >> With reference to the modification in the IGC Charter, >> >> >> I will forward your comments on Charter modification to the Working Group >> that is looking into this. I will not comment on Charter modification until >> the WG has carried out its review and asks for public comments from the >> list. Suffice to say there is a working group that is reviewing the Charter. >> If you are not already a member and desire to be a part it, feel free to >> send Jeremy an email to join. >> >> >> >> Thanking you and Best Regards >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 4:18 >> Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] >> >> Dear All, >> >> I would like to apologise to the list for the shortcomings of the Survey >> that was carried out and solely take full responsibility. In the future to >> ensure that these shortcomings are confined, I will use the >> http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey >> >> This will mean that each member will actually get the form sent to your >> account with your name on it. I also thank Avri and Chris for raising the >> shortcomings of the poll. >> >> Sala >> >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> We are pleased to announce the results of the Survey that was held recently. >> The Survey is attached. We thank all who participated. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Fatima Cambronero, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >Tweeter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 05:35:42 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:35:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] In-Reply-To: <1329732762.37991.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329731719.15011.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329732762.37991.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Thanks Imran. There are whole bunch of content that will need to be reviewed etc. In our last Coordinators Meeting in January, 2012, we discussed the Working Group and were advised that the many of the WGs were inactive for reasons only known to its members and this was the subject of discussions in Nairobi at the IGF. Some of the Working Groups were disbanded because members were not active nor involved. Having said, the Coordinators decided that they would ask past leaders of these WGs whether they wanted to resurrect the WGs. The Charter Review WG of course will be re-activated. Kind Regards, On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Please also note that the provisioning of the Working Groups at Working > Groups Page are representing wrong image as stated "inactive" and when > click on them, it returned "Page not found". > > - IGC outreach working group (inactive) > - IGC strategy working group (inactive) > - IGC work-plan working group (inactive) > - IGC charter review working group > - IGC working group for CSTD issues(inactive) > > > Even, if there has been endorsed a disclaimer that "these groups do not > have any formal authority under the IGC charter" , I would recommend to > update these pages to inlude the list of the members of these WG till a > certain date. As I remember, when the Working Groups were formed, the some > of the members joined different WG. > > ****So, the viewer of the IGC site/page would understand easily that who > is the memebr of these WGs.****** > ** ** > Thanks**** > ** ** > Imran Ahmed Shah**** > > *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > *To:* Imran Ahmed Shah > *Cc:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > "Imran @IGFPak.org" > *Sent:* Monday, 20 February 2012, 15:04 > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] > > Thanks Imran. As promised your comments on the Charter review has been > forwarded to Jeremy who is part of the Charter Review. > > Have a great day! > Sala > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: > > Dear Sala, > > With reference to following suggestions for which (I think) you have > tried > > to convince me about existence of the provisioning of time relaxation > etc... > > I did not mentioned any single instance or case. So, there was no needed > to > > explain. > > > > I submitted these suggestions to follow onward by the IGC-CS as the > > good/common practices and as a tradition (you can also say SOP). > > > > Thanks > > > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > > > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > > To: Imran Ahmed Shah > > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > "Imran > > @IGFPak.org" > > Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 12:37 > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: > > > > Dear Coordinators and All Members > > > > > > Thank you Imran for taking the time to give the list feedback and > > recommendations. They are much appreciated. Some comments are inline. > > > > With reference to the context; discussion and objections on designing and > > conducting the Survey for a common statement and Balloting for voting my > > recommendations are as follows: > > > > 1. Prior to conduct any survey/ balloting, the Mailing List and Voting > > members should be intimated in-time and encouraged and asked to suggest > that > > what items should be (and/or what should not be) inclusive in the survey > > and/or ballot. > > > > The Charter creates an exception for the waiver of the 48 hour rule, I > have > > highlighted the relevant bits see below: > > > > "The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When > > complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly > > empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of > the > > IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC > > appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having > > been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called > after > > a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. > > > > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough > consensus > > call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on > > the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final > > discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough > > consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. > > Statements and representation at meetings. > > > > Normally, whenever there is sufficient time for a statement to be > discussed > > and approved by the caucus as a whole, the decision procedure outlined > above > > will be required. However, there will be occasions when members of the > > caucus will be attending meetings and will be presented with the > opportunity > > to make statements that require a very quick response. In these cases, > while > > it is still required that the caucus be informed of an upcoming statement > > and its contents as soon as possible the following rule may be applied > when > > necessary: > > The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the caucus > and > > will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot be discussed > by > > the caucus within the time available. > > In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with the > > members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect the > assumed > > general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of those members > who > > are physically present at the meeting. > > If neither of the IGC coordinators can be physically present in > face-to-face > > meetings, they will delegate coordination to another participant of such > > events. This delegation should, if possible, be made before the meeting > and > > with the advice of the caucus. > > Statements and positions on behalf of the caucus will be prepared and > > coordinated by the coordinators, or their delegate as appropriate. > > Such statements will reflect the vision, objectives and basic principles > of > > Civil Society in general, and the IGC in particular. Such statements will > > try to interpret, in good faith, the assumed general thinking of the > caucus, > > based on past discussions and documents, and should not contradict the > > positions taken by the caucus in the past. > > Such statements will be sent to the IGC as soon as possible, preferably > > before being presented, but if that is impossible, then as soon after > their > > presentation as possible. > > > > > > 2. Survey should have some additional input fields to provide more > > opportunities to obtain inputs and ideas for every kind and every level > of > > users while they are attempting to answer limited pre-written fields. > > > > I agree. > > > > 3. During the survey/ balloting the user should be provided with the > > option to disagree with all of the contents, overall theme or the list of > > candidate to vote for. In case of disagreement, user may be provided > fields > > (text box) to endorse the statement and reason of the conflict or > > disagreement. > > > > I cannot comment on the balloting but you can raise that with the Charter > > Review Working Group. However in relation to the Survey, absolutely. This > > was provided through the No Option and "Alternative Suggestion" Text > option > > where people could give their comments and some people did use this. > > > > 4. The conflicts, disagreements and/or submitting alternate ideas, > inputs > > should also be considered while preparing the final report. > > If you read the report, we did not amend nor vary people's comments but > > placed them as they were answered in the fields. Diversity of ideas is > > important and fully agree. However, if one does not participate, one's > views > > is not factored in. I have discovered that the IGC website has its own > lime > > survey so we will be using this in the future. > > > > > > > > With reference to the modification in the IGC Charter, > > > > > > I will forward your comments on Charter modification to the Working Group > > that is looking into this. I will not comment on Charter modification > until > > the WG has carried out its review and asks for public comments from the > > list. Suffice to say there is a working group that is reviewing the > Charter. > > If you are not already a member and desire to be a part it, feel free to > > send Jeremy an email to join. > > > > > > > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > > > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 4:18 > > Subject: [governance] Re: Survey Results Out [IGC Consultations] > > > > Dear All, > > > > I would like to apologise to the list for the shortcomings of the Survey > > that was carried out and solely take full responsibility. In the future > to > > ensure that these shortcomings are confined, I will use the > > http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey > > > > This will mean that each member will actually get the form sent to your > > account with your name on it. I also thank Avri and Chris for raising the > > shortcomings of the poll. > > > > Sala > > > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > We are pleased to announce the results of the Survey that was held > recently. > > The Survey is attached. We thank all who participated. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Fatima Cambronero, Izumi Aizu and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Mon Feb 20 06:41:26 2012 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:41:26 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! In-Reply-To: <00be01ccefa5$702a6290$507f27b0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> References: <1329551025.4f3f56b140f5f@gold.itu.ch> <4f3fc7e2.ee48b40a.74f0.3315SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <00be01ccefa5$702a6290$507f27b0$@hoferichter@freenet.de> Message-ID: <1329738086.4f42316666e01@gold.itu.ch> Dear Sandra, Up now from my side here, I can't open the fellowship link. I don't know for others people. Regards Karim, Comoros Quoting sandra hoferichter : > Dear Wilson et all, > > due to a technical error the application for the fellowship programme was > blocked. It is fixed now, please visit www.euro-ssig.eu and apply now until > 15th April. > > Best Sandra > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Wilson Abigaba [mailto:wilson at internetsociety.ug] > Gesendet: Montag, 20. Februar 2012 06:34 > An: sandra hoferichter > Betreff: Re: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance > (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! > > Hi Sandra, > > I think Karim was asking about the fellowship program for developing > countries. On the website, it says the fellowship application period > has finished yet it look it was never advertised because he always > follows the ESSIG website. > > Kindly advise please about the fellowship program. > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 18:43, sandra hoferichter > wrote: > > Dear Karim, it will take place from 22-28 July 2012. > > Best Sandra > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von > > karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int > > Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Februar 2012 08:44 > > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; sandra hoferichter > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Betreff: Re: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance > > (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! > > > > Dear Sandra, > > > > Thank you for this information. > > Sandra from which periode the fellowship programme was taken place. > > I'll always follow ESSIG web site but I did not see it. > > > > Thank you > > > > Karim, Comoros > > > > Quoting sandra hoferichter : > > > >> > >> For the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow: Learning in a Multi > >> Stakeholder Environment > >> > >> > >> Meissen / Germany, 22-28 July 2012 > >> > >> > >> Do you want to understand the multilayer, multi player mechanisms of > >> Internet Governance? Do you want to know what the political, economic, > >> social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you want > >> to learn what is behind cryptic acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, ccTLD, > >> gTLD, iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, W3C, IAB, WHOIS, GAC, IGF, WGIG and WSIS? > >> Do want to get more detailed information about technical Internet > >> standards, protocols, codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries > >> and registrars? Are you interested to look deeper into the > >> opportunities and risks of the emerging global Internet Economy? Do > >> you want to become an Internet Governance leader of tomorrow? > >> > >> Than you should apply for the “2012 European Summer School on Internet > >> Governance” (EuroSSIG). The 2012 Summer School offers a unique > >> multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The > >> programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with > >> world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well > >> known experts working directly in the technical community, the market > >> or in policy. It offers unique opportunities for learning in a multi > >> stakeholder environment, which includes also intense and individual > >> interactive communication with faculty members and fellows from all > >> over the world. The faculty is chaired by Prof. > >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus . > >> > >> Applications will be accepted both from students and individuals > >> working in the private sector, in government or in civil society > >> groups from all over the world. Application criteria are a basic > >> academic degree or relevant practical experiences. > >> > >> The course fee is 1000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the > >> lecture > >> programme: > >> > >> *     six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy, > >> *     breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, > >> *     one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory”, > >> *     gala dinner in the historic wine restaurant “Vincenz Richter”, > >> *     boat trip on the river Elbe > >> *     free WiFi access and > >> *     all teaching material. > >> > >> There is a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). > >> We can offer students from developing countries an opportunity to > >> apply for the fellowship programme. > >> > >> If you are interested in the European Summer School on Internet > >> Governance (EuroSSIG), please send applications until  15 April 2012 > >> by using the > >> >> plenar y/application-form> online application form on the website or > >> contacting directly > >> >> Intern et%20Governance> Sandra Hoferichter the coordinator of the > >> Summer School. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 hadja.sanon at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 06:49:13 2012 From: hadja.sanon at gmail.com (Hadja OUATTARA/ SANON) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:49:13 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! In-Reply-To: <1329738086.4f42316666e01@gold.itu.ch> References: <1329551025.4f3f56b140f5f@gold.itu.ch> <4f3fc7e2.ee48b40a.74f0.3315SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <1329738086.4f42316666e01@gold.itu.ch> Message-ID: Dear Karim I think you mush retry .... I have just successfuly submit Best regards 2012/2/20 > Dear Sandra, > Up now from my side here, I can't open the fellowship link. > I don't know for others people. > Regards > > Karim, Comoros > > Quoting sandra hoferichter : > > > Dear Wilson et all, > > > > due to a technical error the application for the fellowship programme > was > > blocked. It is fixed now, please visit www.euro-ssig.eu and apply now > until > > 15th April. > > > > Best Sandra > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Wilson Abigaba [mailto:wilson at internetsociety.ug] > > Gesendet: Montag, 20. Februar 2012 06:34 > > An: sandra hoferichter > > Betreff: Re: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance > > (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! > > > > Hi Sandra, > > > > I think Karim was asking about the fellowship program for developing > > countries. On the website, it says the fellowship application period > > has finished yet it look it was never advertised because he always > > follows the ESSIG website. > > > > Kindly advise please about the fellowship program. > > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 18:43, sandra hoferichter > > wrote: > > > Dear Karim, it will take place from 22-28 July 2012. > > > Best Sandra > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von > > > karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int > > > Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Februar 2012 08:44 > > > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; sandra hoferichter > > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > Betreff: Re: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance > > > (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! > > > > > > Dear Sandra, > > > > > > Thank you for this information. > > > Sandra from which periode the fellowship programme was taken place. > > > I'll always follow ESSIG web site but I did not see it. > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > Karim, Comoros > > > > > > Quoting sandra hoferichter : > > > > > >> > > >> For the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow: Learning in a Multi > > >> Stakeholder Environment > > >> > > >> > > >> Meissen / Germany, 22-28 July 2012 > > >> > > >> > > >> Do you want to understand the multilayer, multi player mechanisms of > > >> Internet Governance? Do you want to know what the political, economic, > > >> social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you want > > >> to learn what is behind cryptic acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, ccTLD, > > >> gTLD, iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, W3C, IAB, WHOIS, GAC, IGF, WGIG and WSIS? > > >> Do want to get more detailed information about technical Internet > > >> standards, protocols, codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries > > >> and registrars? Are you interested to look deeper into the > > >> opportunities and risks of the emerging global Internet Economy? Do > > >> you want to become an Internet Governance leader of tomorrow? > > >> > > >> Than you should apply for the “2012 European Summer School on Internet > > >> Governance” (EuroSSIG). The 2012 Summer School offers a unique > > >> multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The > > >> programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with > > >> world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well > > >> known experts working directly in the technical community, the market > > >> or in policy. It offers unique opportunities for learning in a multi > > >> stakeholder environment, which includes also intense and individual > > >> interactive communication with faculty members and fellows from all > > >> over the world. The faculty is chaired by Prof. > > >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus . > > >> > > >> Applications will be accepted both from students and individuals > > >> working in the private sector, in government or in civil society > > >> groups from all over the world. Application criteria are a basic > > >> academic degree or relevant practical experiences. > > >> > > >> The course fee is 1000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the > > >> lecture > > >> programme: > > >> > > >> * six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy, > > >> * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, > > >> * one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory”, > > >> * gala dinner in the historic wine restaurant “Vincenz Richter”, > > >> * boat trip on the river Elbe > > >> * free WiFi access and > > >> * all teaching material. > > >> > > >> There is a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). > > >> We can offer students from developing countries an opportunity to > > >> apply for the fellowship programme. > > >> > > >> If you are interested in the European Summer School on Internet > > >> Governance (EuroSSIG), please send applications until 15 April 2012 > > >> by using the > > >> < > http://s248530164.online.de/euro-ssig/euro-ssig-2010/draft-programme/ > > >> plenar y/application-form> online application form on the website or > > >> contacting directly > > >> ?subject=European%20Summer%20School%20on%20 > > >> Intern et%20Governance> Sandra Hoferichter the coordinator of the > > >> Summer School. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Hadja OUATTARA / SANON -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Mon Feb 20 07:16:01 2012 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:16:01 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! In-Reply-To: References: <1329551025.4f3f56b140f5f@gold.itu.ch> <4f3fc7e2.ee48b40a.74f0.3315SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <1329738086.4f42316666e01@gold.itu.ch> Message-ID: <1329740161.4f423981a8987@gold.itu.ch> Now it's ok Thank you. Karim Quoting Hadja OUATTARA/ SANON : > Dear Karim I think you mush retry .... I have just successfuly submit > Best regards > > 2012/2/20 > > > Dear Sandra, > > Up now from my side here, I can't open the fellowship link. > > I don't know for others people. > > Regards > > > > Karim, Comoros > > > > Quoting sandra hoferichter : > > > > > Dear Wilson et all, > > > > > > due to a technical error the application for the fellowship programme > > was > > > blocked. It is fixed now, please visit www.euro-ssig.eu and apply now > > until > > > 15th April. > > > > > > Best Sandra > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: Wilson Abigaba [mailto:wilson at internetsociety.ug] > > > Gesendet: Montag, 20. Februar 2012 06:34 > > > An: sandra hoferichter > > > Betreff: Re: [governance] European Summer School on Internet Governance > > > (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! > > > > > > Hi Sandra, > > > > > > I think Karim was asking about the fellowship program for developing > > > countries. On the website, it says the fellowship application period > > > has finished yet it look it was never advertised because he always > > > follows the ESSIG website. > > > > > > Kindly advise please about the fellowship program. > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 18:43, sandra hoferichter > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Karim, it will take place from 22-28 July 2012. > > > > Best Sandra > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von > > > > karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int > > > > Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Februar 2012 08:44 > > > > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; sandra hoferichter > > > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > Betreff: Re: [governance] European Summer School on Internet > Governance > > > > (EuroSSIG) - Call for application out now! > > > > > > > > Dear Sandra, > > > > > > > > Thank you for this information. > > > > Sandra from which periode the fellowship programme was taken place. > > > > I'll always follow ESSIG web site but I did not see it. > > > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > > > Karim, Comoros > > > > > > > > Quoting sandra hoferichter : > > > > > > > >> > > > >> For the Internet Governance Leaders of Tomorrow: Learning in a Multi > > > >> Stakeholder Environment > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Meissen / Germany, 22-28 July 2012 > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Do you want to understand the multilayer, multi player mechanisms of > > > >> Internet Governance? Do you want to know what the political, > economic, > > > >> social and legal implications of Internet Governance are? Do you > want > > > >> to learn what is behind cryptic acronyms like ICANN, RIR, DNS, > ccTLD, > > > >> gTLD, iDN, IPv6, ISP, IETF, W3C, IAB, WHOIS, GAC, IGF, WGIG and > WSIS? > > > >> Do want to get more detailed information about technical Internet > > > >> standards, protocols, codes, domain names, IP addresses, registries > > > >> and registrars? Are you interested to look deeper into the > > > >> opportunities and risks of the emerging global Internet Economy? Do > > > >> you want to become an Internet Governance leader of tomorrow? > > > >> > > > >> Than you should apply for the “2012 European Summer School on > Internet > > > >> Governance” (EuroSSIG). The 2012 Summer School offers a unique > > > >> multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The > > > >> programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with > > > >> world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well > > > >> known experts working directly in the technical community, the > market > > > >> or in policy. It offers unique opportunities for learning in a multi > > > >> stakeholder environment, which includes also intense and individual > > > >> interactive communication with faculty members and fellows from all > > > >> over the world. The faculty is chaired by Prof. > > > >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus . > > > >> > > > >> Applications will be accepted both from students and individuals > > > >> working in the private sector, in government or in civil society > > > >> groups from all over the world. Application criteria are a basic > > > >> academic degree or relevant practical experiences. > > > >> > > > >> The course fee is 1000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the > > > >> lecture > > > >> programme: > > > >> > > > >> * six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy, > > > >> * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee, > > > >> * one evening reception in the “Meissen Porcelain Manufactory”, > > > >> * gala dinner in the historic wine restaurant “Vincenz Richter”, > > > >> * boat trip on the river Elbe > > > >> * free WiFi access and > > > >> * all teaching material. > > > >> > > > >> There is a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% > VAT). > > > >> We can offer students from developing countries an opportunity to > > > >> apply for the fellowship programme. > > > >> > > > >> If you are interested in the European Summer School on Internet > > > >> Governance (EuroSSIG), please send applications until 15 April 2012 > > > >> by using the > > > >> < > > http://s248530164.online.de/euro-ssig/euro-ssig-2010/draft-programme/ > > > >> plenar y/application-form> online application form on the website or > > > >> contacting directly > > > >> > ?subject=European%20Summer%20School%20on%20 > > > >> Intern et%20Governance> Sandra Hoferichter the coordinator of the > > > >> Summer School. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > Hadja OUATTARA / SANON > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 08:07:09 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:07:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know Message-ID: Using information collected illegally doesn't make its use legal. It doesn't matter whether or not a fly by night company was used as a stooge. Google knew very well they were violating privacy laws. Since the only thing they care of is money, the appropriate reaction should be a fine, in the range of one month revenue. - - - On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:58, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On 20.02.12 11:06, Marie GEORGES wrote: > >> >> Do we have to loose our time to complain every 6 months on new >> IT/criminal practices from dominant IT companies ! ! >> > > The problem is, that most infringements are in fact done by small > companies. As is the case with Apple's platform -- Apple by default has > access to your address book -- in general, if you don't like that you don't > buy their devices. The only "safe" way is if you build your own devices, > but this is beyond the capabilities of most of the population so they > settle for some level of trust -- to their mobile device vendor, to their > communications company and for their software services. > > But, it is entirely possible and perhaps the way those companies conduct > their business to use a "fuse" company, who will publish the rogue > application -- so that it can steal your data and give it in hands of > someone else, be it Google, BBC, Procter & Gamble (to name just few), or > perhaps in the hands of those non-existent US and elsewhere "secret > service" para-governmental structures. In the not so politicaly correct > speech, we call all those collectively "The Mafia". > > Trouble is, that one trades their privacy in exchange for the convenience > of communication. This has been so always in human society, not something > recent with computers, mobile devices and the Internet. > > 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Feb 20 08:08:33 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:08:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org>, at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra writes >What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - well, >hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat and/or Google Do they have a product which competes with the current market leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something which works, of course - historically their tools have been allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the battle. -- 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 Feb 20 08:26:46 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:26:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: at 22:00:48 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Bernard Sadaka writes >I just noticed this article on Mashable where Google was caught >Tracking Safari Users (including myself): http://iuvo.me/w11tzK >Some sort of cookies trick.. Apparently: Google circumventing Safari's cookie-blocking mechanism. If the EU law (mentioned by others) was in place, we wouldn't (without our permission) have the cookies which Safari is trying to block. Cookie-blocking add-ons for other browsers are not affected by this particular exercise. -- 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 Feb 20 08:30:11 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:30:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Amending_the_charter_was_Re=3A_=5B?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5D_Survey_=85=2E?= In-Reply-To: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 20 Feb 2012, at 02:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Thinking from a different angle, if someone has 10 members, he can make any of the positive or negative changes in the IGC Charter. All they can do is get a ballot established on the issue. The change must still be approved by 2/3 of the qualified members - those who voted in the last election (though we still have a questions about what it means to have voted) > Rather than it should be responsibility of the coordinators to encourage list / voting members to participate in the charter modification process to make the procedures in a better form. So, my recommendations are as follows: > I disagree with this point. I think it is up to the proponents of a change to drum up support for their change. I think they can do this on the open list. I would also note that this is how it was done when the qualified caucus amended the charter in the past and it worked quite well. Of course if you want to amend the charter to require action by the co-cos as stated in your note, then that is something that you and 9 others who agree with you can have put to a vote by the qualified members. In Sela's reply there seemed to be an implication (forgive me if I misunderstood, it is what i inferred) that it was up to Jeremy's WG to review all amendments. I do not think this is the case. Any 10 people can submit amendments anytime - they do not need to be processed first by any group or by the co-cos for that matter. There is certainly no problem with Jeremy and a group of likeminded individuals getting together to propose amendments, it is just that the Charter does not give special status to a WG and its requests. It is, for all intents and purposes the same as any self-selected group of 10 or more members who might decided to put a proposal for charter amendment. For example, while I disagree with Imran's suggestions, he could find 9 other qualified members who agreed with him through on /off list discussions and put forward an amendment proposal that the co-cos would have to put to a vote of the qualified members. 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Feb 20 08:52:16 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:52:16 +0800 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Amending_the_charter_was_Re=3A_=5B=5D_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Survey_=E2=80=A6=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F425010.202@ciroap.org> On 20/02/12 21:30, Avri Doria wrote: > Of course if you want to amend the charter to require action by the > co-cos as stated in your note, then that is something that you and 9 > others who agree with you can have put to a vote by the qualified > members. In Sela's reply there seemed to be an implication (forgive me > if I misunderstood, it is what i inferred) that it was up to Jeremy's > WG to review all amendments. I do not think this is the case. Any 10 > people can submit amendments anytime - they do not need to be > processed first by any group or by the co-cos for that matter. There > is certainly no problem with Jeremy and a group of likeminded > individuals getting together to propose amendments, it is just that > the Charter does not give special status to a WG and its requests. It > is, for all intents and purposes the same as any self-selected group > of 10 or more members who might decided to put a proposal for charter > amendment. Agree. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator* Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. www.consumersinternational.org Twitter @Consumers_Int Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2309 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 08:59:24 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:59:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Day 1 - CSTD WG IGF - No. 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Izumi. I'm replying this way because I think the addresses got muddled again so this sends your message to the whole list. Reading this paragraph: - To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the IGF, as part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates of these questions should be stated in the outcome documentation with special focus on policy perspectives and aimed at capacity building. I wondered if it would be possible to alter the perspective on remote participation by turning it into a general policy issue. Remote participation falls into the "internet" arena very neatly, but it is also used by people with no overt IG connection - vide our small local literary group which has remote participants from Turkey and Brazil.? Thank you for the two sets of notes - I really appreciate them. Deirdre On 20 February 2012 09:48, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Now,the first round of discussion: > - to go in small groups or keep the plenary discussion. > Most governments wanted to go in plenary, and that the way to go, > > - style of report - resolution style or recommendation, short and > concise, need chapeau etc > agreed > -- > Today we are going work on A & B, tomorrow, on C &D, Wednesday, on E > and finalize the report. > > A - Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings > > Some asked: Who is going to implement these recommendations? > > After several rounds of discussions, the Chair asked to form a small > group over coffee break, > and then came back and discussed a little more, but went to Lunch, > including the continuation > of the small group discussion/negotiation. > > Now, this is the latest text proposal to be discussed after the lunch > made among different members together: > > ---- > > Develop more tangible and impact oriented outputs > > - To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF > should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the > IGF, as part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates of > these questions should be stated in the outcome documentation with > special focus on policy perspectives and aimed at capacity building. > > - New ways should be found to extract the outcomes of > discussions at the IGF in the form of messages {or topical reports}, > that should map out consensus and diverging opinions and capture the > range of policy options available, especially with regard to the > identified set of policy question > > - The IGF should continue to produce its current reports, > including the chairman´s report, the sessions transcripts, the > workshop reports and the overall proceedings. > > ---- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 09:18:26 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:18:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Amending_the_charter_was_Re=3A_=5B=5D_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Survey_=E2=80=A6=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1329747506.33075.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Avri, my point of view was slightly different.   ".. This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC."   Let me explain: For example as I remember, in your case, you submitted your complaint two times regarding the requirement of the modification of Charter due to conflict of opinions. First time, indicated the requirement of the provisioning of voting "Non-of-Above" in the ballot. At that time, the voting member I agreed with your point of view and may be many other members also agree but there was no such mechanism to ask them that who agree with this point of view and if a strength of 10 members agree, pick your hands to volunteer for the voting and drafting the required amendment. Jeremy did like this but I do not remember that I see any request from you on the list.   So, I want to say that if any member feels that there is requirement of the amendment, the coordinators (and/or other members) may either convince to objector or organize his objection and its proposed remedy through debate/discussion on the list or to initiate the call to arrange the members with same “co-cos for that matter”. If minimum 10 members joins, yes, they can prepare a proper format of Objection, Proposed Modification and return the document for the initiation of a Voting to gain 2/3 majority approval.   This is again necessary because on the single list, (I believe) all of the mailing list members and/or voting members are a single group of volunteers and non-of-us have their own small grouping to discuss and plan common list matters, off the list before posting on the list. So, it is not possible to bring the likeminded individuals (for a matter/ problem you have) by discussing off the list. There should be a proper ethical way of proposing conflicts or opinion and organizing, gathering or assembling group of likeminded/ concurring individuals to rephrase the charter and/or amendments.   So, I just requesting for the arrangement to organize this process.And I hope that reading the above justification, you will agree with me.   Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ >From: Avri Doria >To: IGC >Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 18:30 >Subject: [governance] Amending the charter was Re: [] Survey …. > > >On 20 Feb 2012, at 02:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> Thinking from a different angle, if someone has 10 members, he can make any of the positive or negative changes in the IGC Charter. > >All they can do is get a ballot established on the issue.  The change must still be approved by 2/3 of the qualified members - those who voted in the last election (though we still have a questions about what it means to have voted) > >> Rather than it should be responsibility of the coordinators to encourage list / voting members to participate in the charter modification process to make the procedures in a better form. So, my recommendations are as follows: >> > >I disagree with this point. > >I think it is up to the proponents of a change to drum up support for their change.  I think they can do this on the open list.  I would also note that this is how it was done when the qualified caucus amended the charter in the past and it worked quite well. > >Of course if you want to amend the charter to require action by the co-cos as stated in your note, then that is something that you and 9 others who agree with you can have put to a vote by the qualified members. > >In Sela's reply there seemed to be an implication (forgive me if I misunderstood, it is what i inferred) that it was up to Jeremy's WG to review all amendments.  I do not think this is the case.  Any 10 people can submit amendments anytime - they do not need to be processed first by any group or by the co-cos for that matter.  There is certainly no problem with Jeremy and a group of likeminded individuals getting together to propose amendments, it is just that the Charter does not give special status to a WG and its requests.  It is, for all intents and purposes the same as any self-selected group of 10 or more members who might decided to put a proposal for charter amendment.  For example, while I disagree with Imran's suggestions, he could find 9 other qualified members who agreed with him through on /off list discussions and put forward an amendment proposal that the co-cos would have to put to a vote of the qualified members. > >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 avri at acm.org Mon Feb 20 09:41:41 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:41:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Amending_the_charter_was_Re=3A_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5B=5D_Survey_=85=2E?= In-Reply-To: <1329747506.33075.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329747506.33075.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4BE732F1-A943-46B8-BB17-A3A268FFEC29@acm.org> Hi, I think understand. And having done so before, I could have initiated a charter discussion on it. In this case, I was just as happy to see it absorbed by Jeremy's group. Or someone else could have seen my complaint, especially if were to have been one of the group's taciturn members, and have taken it upon themselves to start such a process. I do not think it appropriate for the co-cos to pick up the concerns of one person and turn it into an issue. I think they should coordinate the views of the community as they emerge. Now with a charter WG, it may incumbent on such as group, by its own view of its goals, to pick up such complaints and look at them. And a co-co making sure they know of the issue does seem appropriate as long as it doesn't take on an official meaning and is just an act of coordination. avri On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:18, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Avri, my point of view was slightly different. > > ".. This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC." > > Let me explain: > For example as I remember, in your case, you submitted your complaint two times regarding the requirement of the modification of Charter due to conflict of opinions. First time, indicated the requirement of the provisioning of voting "Non-of-Above" in the ballot. At that time, the voting member I agreed with your point of view and may be many other members also agree but there was no such mechanism to ask them that who agree with this point of view and if a strength of 10 members agree, pick your hands to volunteer for the voting and drafting the required amendment. Jeremy did like this but I do not remember that I see any request from you on the list. > > So, I want to say that if any member feels that there is requirement of the amendment, the coordinators (and/or other members) may either convince to objector or organize his objection and its proposed remedy through debate/discussion on the list or to initiate the call to arrange the members with same “co-cos for that matter”. If minimum 10 members joins, yes, they can prepare a proper format of Objection, Proposed Modification and return the document for the initiation of a Voting to gain 2/3 majority approval. > > This is again necessary because on the single list, (I believe) all of the mailing list members and/or voting members are a single group of volunteers and non-of-us have their own small grouping to discuss and plan common list matters, off the list before posting on the list. So, it is not possible to bring the likeminded individuals (for a matter/ problem you have) by discussing off the list. There should be a proper ethical way of proposing conflicts or opinion and organizing, gathering or assembling group of likeminded/ concurring individuals to rephrase the charter and/or amendments. > > So, I just requesting for the arrangement to organize this process. And I hope that reading the above justification, you will agree with me. > > Thanks > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > From: Avri Doria > To: IGC > Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 18:30 > Subject: [governance] Amending the charter was Re: [] Survey …. > > > On 20 Feb 2012, at 02:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > > Thinking from a different angle, if someone has 10 members, he can make any of the positive or negative changes in the IGC Charter. > > All they can do is get a ballot established on the issue. The change must still be approved by 2/3 of the qualified members - those who voted in the last election (though we still have a questions about what it means to have voted) > > > Rather than it should be responsibility of the coordinators to encourage list / voting members to participate in the charter modification process to make the procedures in a better form. So, my recommendations are as follows: > > > > I disagree with this point. > > I think it is up to the proponents of a change to drum up support for their change. I think they can do this on the open list. I would also note that this is how it was done when the qualified caucus amended the charter in the past and it worked quite well. > > Of course if you want to amend the charter to require action by the co-cos as stated in your note, then that is something that you and 9 others who agree with you can have put to a vote by the qualified members. > > In Sela's reply there seemed to be an implication (forgive me if I misunderstood, it is what i inferred) that it was up to Jeremy's WG to review all amendments. I do not think this is the case. Any 10 people can submit amendments anytime - they do not need to be processed first by any group or by the co-cos for that matter. There is certainly no problem with Jeremy and a group of likeminded individuals getting together to propose amendments, it is just that the Charter does not give special status to a WG and its requests. It is, for all intents and purposes the same as any self-selected group of 10 or more members who might decided to put a proposal for charter amendment. For example, while I disagree with Imran's suggestions, he could find 9 other qualified members who agreed with him through on /off list discussions and put forward an amendment proposal that the co-cos would have to put to a vote of the qualified members. > > 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 09:43:50 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:43:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups Message-ID: Dear All, Please find attached the document containing the list of main session themes and suggested sub topics as it stood at the end of the MAG meeting. The intention is to have a facilitator that can work with all stakeholder groups while the aim for each thematic working group is for their respective themes is to: - consolidate the list of topics under the theme - come up with a coherent description of the theme - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme (following the way we organized it last year). The following MAG members agreed to be facilitators/coordinators for the online working groups, • IG4D – (FOUAD BAJWA – FOUADBAJWA at GMAIL.COM ) • Emerging Issues - (BILL GRAHAM – LIKEANARROW at GMAIL.COM ) • Managing Critical Internet Resources – (JENNIFER WARREN JENNIFER.WARREN at LMCO.COM ) • Security, Openness and Privacy – (THERESA SWINEHART – THERESA.SWINEHART at VERIZON.COM ) • Access and Diversity – AYESHA HASSAN – AYESHA.HASSAN at ICCWBO.ORG ) • Taking Stock and the Way Forward - (ROMULO NEVES – ROMULO.NEVES at ITAMARATY.GOV.BR ) Kindly inform your groups respectively. The deadline agreed was 1 March 2012. I recommend everyone to send in their input before 27 Feb so the groups can complete their work. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Internet Governance Advisor ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DRAFT7.doc Type: application/msword Size: 47616 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 iza at anr.org Mon Feb 20 09:57:21 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:57:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] Day 1 - CSTD WG IGF - No. 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Deirdre and sorry for the continued confusion. Using Gmail, they give automatic filling of addresses. I should be more careful. izumi 2012/2/20 Deirdre Williams : > Dear Izumi. > I'm replying this way because I think the addresses got muddled again so > this sends your message to the whole list. > > Reading this paragraph: > -       To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF > should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the > IGF, as part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates of > these questions should be stated in the outcome documentation with > special focus on policy perspectives and aimed at capacity building. > > I wondered if it would be possible to alter the perspective on remote > participation by turning it into a general policy issue. Remote > participation falls into the "internet" arena very neatly, but it is also > used by people with no overt IG connection - vide our small local literary > group which has remote participants from Turkey and Brazil.? > > Thank you for the two sets of notes - I really appreciate them. > Deirdre > > On 20 February 2012 09:48, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> Now,the first round of discussion: >> - to go in small groups or keep the plenary discussion. >>  Most governments wanted to go in plenary, and that the way to go, >> >> - style of report - resolution style or recommendation, short and >> concise, need chapeau  etc >>  agreed >> -- >> Today we are going work on A & B, tomorrow, on C &D, Wednesday, on E >> and finalize the report. >> >> A - Shaping the outcomes of IGF meetings >> >> Some asked: Who is going to implement these recommendations? >> >> After several rounds of discussions, the Chair asked to form a small >> group over coffee break, >> and then came back and discussed a little more, but went to Lunch, >> including the continuation >> of the small group discussion/negotiation. >> >> Now, this is the latest text proposal to be discussed after the lunch >> made among different members together: >> >> ---- >> >> Develop more tangible and impact oriented outputs >> >> -       To focus discussions, the preparation process of each IGF >> should formulate a set of policy questions to be considered at the >> IGF, as part of the overall discussion. The results of the debates of >> these questions should be stated in the outcome documentation with >> special focus on policy perspectives and aimed at capacity building. >> >> -       New ways should be found to extract the outcomes of >> discussions at the IGF in the form of messages {or topical reports}, >> that should map out consensus and diverging opinions and capture the >> range of policy options available, especially with regard to the >> identified set of policy question >> >> -       The IGF should continue to produce its current reports, >> including the chairman´s report, the sessions transcripts, the >> workshop reports and the overall proceedings. >> >> ---- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> To 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 --                         >> 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 daniel at digsys.bg Mon Feb 20 10:58:35 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:58:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F426DAB.1050309@digsys.bg> On 20.02.12 15:07, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Using information collected illegally doesn't make its use legal. It > doesn't matter whether or not a fly by night company was used as a > stooge. Google knew very well they were violating privacy laws. Since > the only thing they care of is money, the appropriate reaction should > be a fine, in the range of one month revenue. > Indeed. But -- has this happened to Google? This is certainly not the first time they are suspected to collect private information. If no such actions are effected on Google, then apparently someone wants Google to operate this way... which is actually worse, than one company's greed. 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 aizu at anr.org Mon Feb 20 11:09:31 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:09:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Amending_the_charter_was_Re=3A_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5B=5D_Survey_=85=2E?= In-Reply-To: <4BE732F1-A943-46B8-BB17-A3A268FFEC29@acm.org> References: <1329721975.60510.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329747506.33075.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4BE732F1-A943-46B8-BB17-A3A268FFEC29@acm.org> Message-ID: Imran, Jeremy, Avri and all, I quite agree with what Avri wrote below. The essence of co-co's role is, as stated in the charter, to help the caucus reach the consensus. It is a sort of week leadership and should not put too much proactive engagement, especially, in the substantive policy areas within IGC. First role for us is to listen - and listen carefully of diverse opinions. I hope this is in line with most of your thinking. best, izumi 2012/2/20 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I think understand. > > And having done so before, I could have initiated a charter discussion on it.  In this case, I was just as happy to see it absorbed by Jeremy's group. > > Or someone else could have seen my complaint, especially if were to have been one of the group's taciturn members, and have taken it upon themselves to start such a process. > > I do not think it appropriate for the co-cos to pick up the concerns of one person and turn it into an issue.  I think they should coordinate the views of the community as they emerge. > > Now with a charter WG, it may incumbent on such as group, by its own view of its goals, to pick up such complaints and look at them.  And a co-co making sure they know of the issue does seem appropriate as long as it doesn't take on an official meaning and is just an act of coordination. > > avri > > > On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:18, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> Avri, my point of view was slightly different. >> >> ".. This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC." >> >> Let me explain: >> For example as I remember, in your case, you submitted your complaint two times regarding the requirement of the modification of Charter due to conflict of opinions. First time, indicated the requirement of the provisioning of voting "Non-of-Above" in the ballot. At that time, the voting member I agreed with your point of view and may be many other members also agree but there was no such mechanism to ask them that who agree with this point of view and if a strength of 10 members agree, pick your hands to volunteer for the voting and drafting the required amendment. Jeremy did like this but I do not remember that I see any request from you on the list. >> >> So, I want to say that if any member feels that there is requirement of the amendment, the coordinators (and/or other members) may either convince to objector or organize his objection and its proposed remedy through debate/discussion on the list or to initiate the call to arrange the members with same “co-cos for that matter”. If minimum 10 members joins, yes, they can prepare a proper format of Objection, Proposed Modification and return the document for the initiation of a Voting to gain 2/3 majority approval. >> >> This is again necessary because on the single list, (I believe) all of the mailing list members and/or voting members are a single group of volunteers and non-of-us have their own small grouping to discuss and plan common list matters, off the list before posting on the list. So, it is not possible to bring the likeminded individuals (for a matter/ problem you have) by discussing off the list. There should be a proper ethical way of proposing conflicts or opinion and organizing, gathering or assembling group of likeminded/ concurring individuals to rephrase the charter and/or amendments. >> >> So, I just requesting for the arrangement to organize this process. And I hope that reading the above justification, you will agree with me. >> >> Thanks >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> From: Avri Doria >> To: IGC >> Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 18:30 >> Subject: [governance] Amending the charter was Re: [] Survey …. >> >> >> On 20 Feb 2012, at 02:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >> > Thinking from a different angle, if someone has 10 members, he can make any of the positive or negative changes in the IGC Charter. >> >> All they can do is get a ballot established on the issue.  The change must still be approved by 2/3 of the qualified members - those who voted in the last election (though we still have a questions about what it means to have voted) >> >> > Rather than it should be responsibility of the coordinators to encourage list / voting members to participate in the charter modification process to make the procedures in a better form. So, my recommendations are as follows: >> > >> >> I disagree with this point. >> >> I think it is up to the proponents of a change to drum up support for their change.  I think they can do this on the open list.  I would also note that this is how it was done when the qualified caucus amended the charter in the past and it worked quite well. >> >> Of course if you want to amend the charter to require action by the co-cos as stated in your note, then that is something that you and 9 others who agree with you can have put to a vote by the qualified members. >> >> In Sela's reply there seemed to be an implication (forgive me if I misunderstood, it is what i inferred) that it was up to Jeremy's WG to review all amendments.  I do not think this is the case.  Any 10 people can submit amendments anytime - they do not need to be processed first by any group or by the co-cos for that matter.  There is certainly no problem with Jeremy and a group of likeminded individuals getting together to propose amendments, it is just that the Charter does not give special status to a WG and its requests.  It is, for all intents and purposes the same as any self-selected group of 10 or more members who might decided to put a proposal for charter amendment.  For example, while I disagree with Imran's suggestions, he could find 9 other qualified members who agreed with him through on /off list discussions and put forward an amendment proposal that the co-cos would have to put to a vote of the qualified members. >> >> 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 > --                         >> 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 11:35:22 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:35:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Amending_the_charter_was_Re=3A_=5B=5D_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Survey_=E2=80=A6=2E?= Message-ID: <1329755722.12057.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Would you please help me to understand the mean of co-cos, I used it as 'a group of same cause' Thanks ------------------------------On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:41 PM PKT Avri Doria wrote:>Hi,>>I think understand.>>And having done so before, I could have initiated a charter discussion on it. In this case, I was just as happy to see it absorbed by Jeremy's group.>>Or someone else could have seen my complaint, especially if were to have been one of the group's taciturn members, and have taken it upon themselves to start such a process.>>I do not think it appropriate for the co-cos to pick up the concerns of one person and turn it into an issue. I think they should coordinate the views of the community as they emerge. >>Now with a charter WG, it may incumbent on such as group, by its own view of its goals, to pick up such complaints and look at them. And a co-co making sure they know of the issue does seem appropriate as long as it doesn't take on an official meaning and is just an act of coordination.>>avri>>>On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:18, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>>> Avri, my point of view was slightly different.>> >> ".. This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC.">> >> Let me explain:>> For example as I remember, in your case, you submitted your complaint two times regarding the requirement of the modification of Charter due to conflict of opinions. First time, indicated the requirement of the provisioning of voting "Non-of-Above" in the ballot. At that time, the voting member I agreed with your point of view and may be many other members also agree but there was no such mechanism to ask them that who agree with this point of view and if a strength of 10 members agree, pick your hands to volunteer for the voting and drafting the required amendment. Jeremy did like this but I do not remember that I see any request from you on the list.>> >> So, I want to say that if any member feels that there is requirement of the amendment, the coordinators (and/or other members) may either convince to objector or organize his objection and its proposed remedy through debate/discussion on the list or to initiate the call to arrange the members with same “co-cos for that matter”. If minimum 10 members joins, yes, they can prepare a proper format of Objection, Proposed Modification and return the document for the initiation of a Voting to gain 2/3 majority approval.>> >> This is again necessary because on the single list, (I believe) all of the mailing list members and/or voting members are a single group of volunteers and non-of-us have their own small grouping to discuss and plan common list matters, off the list before posting on the list. So, it is not possible to bring the likeminded individuals (for a matter/ problem you have) by discussing off the list. There should be a proper ethical way of proposing conflicts or opinion and organizing, gathering or assembling group of likeminded/ concurring individuals to rephrase the charter and/or amendments.>> >> So, I just requesting for the arrangement to organize this process. And I hope that reading the above justification, you will agree with me.>> >> Thanks>> >> Imran Ahmed Shah>> >> From: Avri Doria >> To: IGC >> Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 18:30>> Subject: [governance] Amending the charter was Re: [] Survey ….>> >> >> On 20 Feb 2012, at 02:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>> >> > Thinking from a different angle, if someone has 10 members, he can make any of the positive or negative changes in the IGC Charter. >> >> All they can do is get a ballot established on the issue. The change must still be approved by 2/3 of the qualified members - those who voted in the last election (though we still have a questions about what it means to have voted)>> >> > Rather than it should be responsibility of the coordinators to encourage list / voting members to participate in the charter modification process to make the procedures in a better form. So, my recommendations are as follows:>> > >> >> I disagree with this point.>> >> I think it is up to the proponents of a change to drum up support for their change. I think they can do this on the open list. I would also note that this is how it was done when the qualified caucus amended the charter in the past and it worked quite well.>> >> Of course if you want to amend the charter to require action by the co-cos as stated in your note, then that is something that you and 9 others who agree with you can have put to a vote by the qualified members.>> >> In Sela's reply there seemed to be an implication (forgive me if I misunderstood, it is what i inferred) that it was up to Jeremy's WG to review all amendments. I do not think this is the case. Any 10 people can submit amendments anytime - they do not need to be processed first by any group or by the co-cos for that matter. There is certainly no problem with Jeremy and a group of likeminded individuals getting together to propose amendments, it is just that the Charter does not give special status to a WG and its requests. It is, for all intents and purposes the same as any self-selected group of 10 or more members who might decided to put a proposal for charter amendment. For example, while I disagree with Imran's suggestions, he could find 9 other qualified members who agreed with him through on /off list discussions and put forward an amendment proposal that the co-cos would have to put to a vote of the qualified members.>> >> 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 12:23:52 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:23:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Amending_the_charter_was_Re=3A_=5B=5D_?= =?UTF-8?Q?Survey_=E2=80=A6=2E?= Message-ID: <1329758632.34985.yint-ygo-j2me@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Would you please help me to understand the meaning of abv. 'co-cos', I used it as 'a group of same cause' And I also agree the limited part of responsibilities of Coordinators, however, at least to coordinate. Imran ------------------------------On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 9:09 PM PKT Izumi AIZU wrote:>Imran, Jeremy, Avri and all,>>I quite agree with what Avri wrote below.>The essence of co-co's role is, as stated in the>charter, to help the caucus reach the consensus.>>It is a sort of week leadership and should not put too much>proactive engagement, especially, in the substantive policy areas>within IGC. First role for us is to listen - and listen>carefully of diverse opinions.>>I hope this is in line with most of your thinking.>>best,>>izumi>>>2012/2/20 Avri Doria :>> Hi,>>>> I think understand.>>>> And having done so before, I could have initiated a charter discussion on it. In this case, I was just as happy to see it absorbed by Jeremy's group.>>>> Or someone else could have seen my complaint, especially if were to have been one of the group's taciturn members, and have taken it upon themselves to start such a process.>>>> I do not think it appropriate for the co-cos to pick up the concerns of one person and turn it into an issue. I think they should coordinate the views of the community as they emerge.>>>> Now with a charter WG, it may incumbent on such as group, by its own view of its goals, to pick up such complaints and look at them. And a co-co making sure they know of the issue does seem appropriate as long as it doesn't take on an official meaning and is just an act of coordination.>>>> avri>>>>>> On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:18, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>>>> Avri, my point of view was slightly different.>>>> ".. This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC.">>>> Let me explain:>> For example as I remember, in your case, you submitted your complaint two times regarding the requirement of the modification of Charter due to conflict of opinions. First time, indicated the requirement of the provisioning of voting "Non-of-Above" in the ballot. At that time, the voting member I agreed with your point of view and may be many other members also agree but there was no such mechanism to ask them that who agree with this point of view and if a strength of 10 members agree, pick your hands to volunteer for the voting and drafting the required amendment. Jeremy did like this but I do not remember that I see any request from you on the list.>>>> So, I want to say that if any member feels that there is requirement of the amendment, the coordinators (and/or other members) may either convince to objector or organize his objection and its proposed remedy through debate/discussion on the list or to initiate the call to arrange the members with same “co-cos for that matter”. If minimum 10 members joins, yes, they can prepare a proper format of Objection, Proposed Modification and return the document for the initiation of a Voting to gain 2/3 majority approval.>>>> This is again necessary because on the single list, (I believe) all of the mailing list members and/or voting members are a single group of volunteers and non-of-us have their own small grouping to discuss and plan common list matters, off the list before posting on the list. So, it is not possible to bring the likeminded individuals (for a matter/ problem you have) by discussing off the list. There should be a proper ethical way of proposing conflicts or opinion and organizing, gathering or assembling group of likeminded/ concurring individuals to rephrase the charter and/or amendments.>>>> So, I just requesting for the arrangement to organize this process. And I hope that reading the above justification, you will agree with me.>>>> Thanks>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah>>>> From: Avri Doria >> To: IGC >> Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 18:30>> Subject: [governance] Amending the charter was Re: [] Survey ….>>>>>> On 20 Feb 2012, at 02:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>>>> > Thinking from a different angle, if someone has 10 members, he can make any of the positive or negative changes in the IGC Charter.>>>> All they can do is get a ballot established on the issue. The change must still be approved by 2/3 of the qualified members - those who voted in the last election (though we still have a questions about what it means to have voted)>>>> > Rather than it should be responsibility of the coordinators to encourage list / voting members to participate in the charter modification process to make the procedures in a better form. So, my recommendations are as follows:>> >>>>> I disagree with this point.>>>> I think it is up to the proponents of a change to drum up support for their change. I think they can do this on the open list. I would also note that this is how it was done when the qualified caucus amended the charter in the past and it worked quite well.>>>> Of course if you want to amend the charter to require action by the co-cos as stated in your note, then that is something that you and 9 others who agree with you can have put to a vote by the qualified members.>>>> In Sela's reply there seemed to be an implication (forgive me if I misunderstood, it is what i inferred) that it was up to Jeremy's WG to review all amendments. I do not think this is the case. Any 10 people can submit amendments anytime - they do not need to be processed first by any group or by the co-cos for that matter. There is certainly no problem with Jeremy and a group of likeminded individuals getting together to propose amendments, it is just that the Charter does not give special status to a WG and its requests. It is, for all intents and purposes the same as any self-selected group of 10 or more members who might decided to put a proposal for charter amendment. For example, while I disagree with Imran's suggestions, he could find 9 other qualified members who agreed with him through on /off list discussions and put forward an amendment proposal that the co-cos would have to put to a vote of the qualified members.>>>> 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>>>>>>-- > > 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 iza at anr.org Mon Feb 20 12:21:23 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:21:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Amending_the_charter_was_Re=3A_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5B=5D_Survey_=85=2E?= In-Reply-To: <1329755722.12057.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329755722.12057.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I guess "co-co" means "Co-coordinators" ;-) Sorry for the confusion. izumi 2012/2/21 Imran Ahmed Shah : > > Would you please help me to understand the mean of co-cos, I used it as 'a group of same cause' > > Thanks > ------------------------------On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 7:41 PM PKT Avri Doria wrote:>Hi,>>I think understand.>>And having done so before, I could have initiated a charter discussion on it.  In this case, I was just as happy to see it absorbed by Jeremy's group.>>Or someone else could have seen my complaint, especially if were to have been one of the group's taciturn members, and have taken it upon themselves to start such a process.>>I do not think it appropriate for the co-cos to pick up the concerns of one person and turn it into an issue.  I think they should coordinate the views of the community as they emerge.  >>Now with a charter WG, it may incumbent on such as group, by its own view of its goals, to pick up such complaints and look at them.  And a co-co making sure they know of the issue does seem appropriate as long as it doesn't take on an official meaning and is just an act of coordination.>>avri>>>On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:18, Imran Ahmed Shah >  wrote:>>> Avri, my point of view was slightly different.>>  >> ".. This charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC.">>  >> Let me explain:>> For example as I remember, in your case, you submitted your complaint two times regarding the requirement of the modification of Charter due to conflict of opinions. First time, indicated the requirement of the provisioning of voting "Non-of-Above" in the ballot. At that time, the voting member I agreed with your point of view and may be many other members also agree but there was no such mechanism to ask them that who agree with this point of view and if a strength of 10 members agree, pick your hands to volunteer for the voting and drafting the required amendment. Jeremy did like this but I do not remember that I see any request from you on the list.>>  >> So, I want to say that if any member feels >  that there is requirement of the amendment, the coordinators (and/or other members) may either convince to objector or organize his objection and its proposed remedy through debate/discussion on the list or to initiate the call to arrange the members with same “co-cos for that matter”. If minimum 10 members joins, yes, they can prepare a proper format of Objection, Proposed Modification and return the document for the initiation of a Voting to gain 2/3 majority approval.>>  >> This is again necessary because on the single list, (I believe) all of the mailing list members and/or voting members are a single group of volunteers and non-of-us have their own small grouping to discuss and plan common list matters, off the list before posting on the list. So, it is not possible to bring the likeminded individuals (for a matter/ problem you have) by discussing off the list. There should be a proper ethical way of proposing conflicts or opinion and >  organizing, gathering or assembling group of likeminded/ concurring individuals to rephrase the charter and/or amendments.>>  >> So, I just requesting for the arrangement to organize this process. And I hope that reading the above justification, you will agree with me.>>  >> Thanks>>  >> Imran Ahmed Shah>> >> From: Avri Doria >> To: IGC >> Sent: Monday, 20 February 2012, 18:30>> Subject: [governance] Amending the charter was Re: [] Survey ….>> >> >> On 20 Feb 2012, at 02:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>> >> > Thinking from a different angle, if someone has 10 members, he can make any of the positive or negative changes in the IGC Charter. >> >> All they can do is get a ballot established on the issue.  The change must still be approved by 2/3 of the qualified members - those who voted in the last election (though we still have a questions about what it means to have voted)>> >> > Rather than it should be >  responsibility of the coordinators to encourage list / voting members to participate in the charter modification process to make the procedures in a better form. So, my recommendations are as follows:>> > >> >> I disagree with this point.>> >> I think it is up to the proponents of a change to drum up support for their change.  I think they can do this on the open list.  I would also note that this is how it was done when the qualified caucus amended the charter in the past and it worked quite well.>> >> Of course if you want to amend the charter to require action by the co-cos as stated in your note, then that is something that you and 9 others who agree with you can have put to a vote by the qualified members.>> >> In Sela's reply there seemed to be an implication (forgive me if I misunderstood, it is what i inferred) that it was up to Jeremy's WG to review all amendments.  I do not think this is the case.  Any 10 people can submit amendments anytime - >  they do not need to be processed first by any group or by the co-cos for that matter.  There is certainly no problem with Jeremy and a group of likeminded individuals getting together to propose amendments, it is just that the Charter does not give special status to a WG and its requests.  It is, for all intents and purposes the same as any self-selected group of 10 or more members who might decided to put a proposal for charter amendment.  For example, while I disagree with Imran's suggestions, he could find 9 other qualified members who agreed with him through on /off list discussions and put forward an amendment proposal that the co-cos would have to put to a vote of the qualified members.>> >> 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 > --                         >> 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 12:29:38 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:29:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Amending_the_charter_was_Re=3A_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5B=5D_Survey_=85=2E?= In-Reply-To: <1329758632.34985.yint-ygo-j2me@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329758632.34985.yint-ygo-j2me@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I do not think it appropriate for the co-cos to pick up the concerns of one person and turn it into an issue. I think they should coordinate the views of the community as they emerge. The issues raised in this instance are not isolated and an in conjunction to the views raised in numerous other threads this year. You can trust that we have been observing these contributions which is the reason for escalation to the Working Group. This is coordinating as far as I am concerned. On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Would you please help me to understand the meaning of abv. 'co-cos', I > used it as 'a group of same cause' > And I also agree the limited part of responsibilities of Coordinators, > however, at least to coordinate. > Imran > ------------------------------On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 9:09 PM PKT Izumi AIZU > wrote:>Imran, Jeremy, Avri and all,>>I quite agree with what Avri wrote > below.>The essence of co-co's role is, as stated in the>charter, to help > the caucus reach the consensus.>>It is a sort of week leadership and should > not put too much>proactive engagement, especially, in the substantive > policy areas>within IGC. First role for us is to listen - and > listen>carefully of diverse opinions.>>I hope this is in line with most of > your thinking.>>best,>>izumi>>>2012/2/20 Avri Doria :>> > Hi,>>>> I think understand.>>>> And having done so before, I could have > initiated a charter discussion on it. In this case, I was just as happy to > see it absorbed by Jeremy's group.>>>> Or someone else could have seen my > complaint, especially if were to have been one of the group's taciturn > members, and have taken it upon themselves to start such a process.>>>> I > do not think it appropriate > for the co-cos to pick up the concerns of one person and turn it into an > issue. I think they should coordinate the views of the community as they > emerge.>>>> Now with a charter WG, it may incumbent on such as group, by > its own view of its goals, to pick up such complaints and look at them. > And a co-co making sure they know of the issue does seem appropriate as > long as it doesn't take on an official meaning and is just an act of > coordination.>>>> avri>>>>>> On 20 Feb 2012, at 09:18, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote:>>>> Avri, my point of view was slightly different.>>>> ".. This > charter can be amended at any time as proposed by no fewer than ten (10) > members and as approved by no less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of > the IGC.">>>> Let me explain:>> For example as I remember, in your case, > you submitted your complaint two times regarding the requirement of the > modification of Charter due to conflict of opinions. First time, indicated > the requirement of the > provisioning of voting "Non-of-Above" in the ballot. At that time, the > voting member I agreed with your point of view and may be many other > members also agree but there was no such mechanism to ask them that who > agree with this point of view and if a strength of 10 members agree, pick > your hands to volunteer for the voting and drafting the required amendment. > Jeremy did like this but I do not remember that I see any request from you > on the list.>>>> So, I want to say that if any member feels that there is > requirement of the amendment, the coordinators (and/or other members) may > either convince to objector or organize his objection and its proposed > remedy through debate/discussion on the list or to initiate the call to > arrange the members with same “co-cos for that matter”. If minimum 10 > members joins, yes, they can prepare a proper format of Objection, Proposed > Modification and return the document for the initiation of a Voting to gain > 2/3 majority > approval.>>>> This is again necessary because on the single list, (I > believe) all of the mailing list members and/or voting members are a single > group of volunteers and non-of-us have their own small grouping to discuss > and plan common list matters, off the list before posting on the list. So, > it is not possible to bring the likeminded individuals (for a matter/ > problem you have) by discussing off the list. There should be a proper > ethical way of proposing conflicts or opinion and organizing, gathering or > assembling group of likeminded/ concurring individuals to rephrase the > charter and/or amendments.>>>> So, I just requesting for the arrangement to > organize this process. And I hope that reading the above justification, you > will agree with me.>>>> Thanks>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah>>>> From: Avri Doria < > avri at acm.org>>> To: IGC >> Sent: Monday, > 20 February 2012, 18:30>> Subject: [governance] Amending the charter was > Re: [] Survey > ….>>>>>> On 20 Feb 2012, at 02:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>>>> > Thinking > from a different angle, if someone has 10 members, he can make any of the > positive or negative changes in the IGC Charter.>>>> All they can do is get > a ballot established on the issue. The change must still be approved by > 2/3 of the qualified members - those who voted in the last election (though > we still have a questions about what it means to have voted)>>>> > Rather > than it should be responsibility of the coordinators to encourage list / > voting members to participate in the charter modification process to make > the procedures in a better form. So, my recommendations are as follows:>> > >>>>> I disagree with this point.>>>> I think it is up to the proponents of > a change to drum up support for their change. I think they can do this on > the open list. I would also note that this is how it was done when the > qualified caucus amended the charter in the past and it worked quite > well.>>>> Of course if you want to amend the charter to require action by > the co-cos as stated in your note, then that is something that you and 9 > others who agree with you can have put to a vote by the qualified > members.>>>> In Sela's reply there seemed to be an implication (forgive me > if I misunderstood, it is what i inferred) that it was up to Jeremy's WG to > review all amendments. I do not think this is the case. Any 10 people can > submit amendments anytime - they do not need to be processed first by any > group or by the co-cos for that matter. There is certainly no problem with > Jeremy and a group of likeminded individuals getting together to propose > amendments, it is just that the Charter does not give special status to a > WG and its requests. It is, for all intents and purposes the same as any > self-selected group of 10 or more members who might decided to put a > proposal for charter amendment. For example, while I disagree with Imran's > suggestions, he could find 9 other qualified members who agreed with him > through on /off list discussions and put forward an amendment proposal that > the co-cos would have to put to a vote of the qualified members.>>>> > 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>>>>>>-- > > > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Feb 20 12:29:28 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:29:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Day 1 - CSTD WG IGF - No. 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry for not reporting much. We have [almost] finished the first point - Shaping the outcome of IGF meetings. We agreed to shorten as much as possible, and deleted some "resolution style" phrases from the discussion. The Chair will be tasked to write kind of Chapeau portion which will be outside the WG discussion per se. We are now discussing the Point B - Working modalities including open consultations, MAG and Secretariat. Suggestion to create "Trusted Group" to select the MAG members was made but did not gain much support, including from us, the CS members. The atmosphere is not bad. Friendly, trying to be productive. But devils are often in the details. The Chair asked us to stay a little longer, but we will close soon, say by 18:45 or so hopefully. With this pace, considering the contentious portion of funding is ahead, we need to work very hard tomorrow and the day after. Chair said - at the World Radio Congress of the ITU, the extended meeting went so late to 6 am. We are much better :-) izumi -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 20 12:37:24 2012 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:37:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55A1B79B-40B0-4104-B3B5-68500BF27B48@noos.fr> I perfectly agree with you Louis.... if the fine was imposed quickly...not in 2 years...and in between new violation. The basic problem is that with Google, Facebook and others we relay on an economic model which is based on making money with "assets "made of personal data Marie. Le 20 févr. 2012 à 14:07, Louis Pouzin (well) a écrit : > Using information collected illegally doesn't make its use legal. It doesn't matter whether or not a fly by night company was used as a stooge. Google knew very well they were violating privacy laws. Since the only thing they care of is money, the appropriate reaction should be a fine, in the range of one month revenue. > - - - > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:58, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On 20.02.12 11:06, Marie GEORGES wrote: > > Do we have to loose our time to complain every 6 months on new IT/criminal practices from dominant IT companies ! ! > > The problem is, that most infringements are in fact done by small companies. As is the case with Apple's platform -- Apple by default has access to your address book -- in general, if you don't like that you don't buy their devices. The only "safe" way is if you build your own devices, but this is beyond the capabilities of most of the population so they settle for some level of trust -- to their mobile device vendor, to their communications company and for their software services. > > But, it is entirely possible and perhaps the way those companies conduct their business to use a "fuse" company, who will publish the rogue application -- so that it can steal your data and give it in hands of someone else, be it Google, BBC, Procter & Gamble (to name just few), or perhaps in the hands of those non-existent US and elsewhere "secret service" para-governmental structures. In the not so politicaly correct speech, we call all those collectively "The Mafia". > > Trouble is, that one trades their privacy in exchange for the convenience of communication. This has been so always in human society, not something recent with computers, mobile devices and the Internet. > > Daniel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Mon Feb 20 13:06:55 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:06:55 -0800 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F428BBF.2070503@eff.org> Dear all, As current MAG member, I have joined the SOP volunteer group. Can you please let me know which issues are a priority for the IGC community, please? Many thanks, Katitza On 2/20/12 6:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached the document containing the list of main session > themes and suggested sub topics as it stood at the end of the MAG > meeting. The intention is to have a facilitator that can work with > all stakeholder groups while the aim for each thematic working group > is for their respective themes is to: > > * consolidate the list of topics under the theme > * come up with a coherent description of the theme > * come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme > (following the way we organized it last year). > > The following MAG members agreed to be facilitators/coordinators for > the online working groups, > > • IG4D – (FOUAD BAJWA – FOUADBAJWA at GMAIL.COM > ) > • Emerging Issues - (BILL GRAHAM – LIKEANARROW at GMAIL.COM > ) > • Managing Critical Internet Resources – (JENNIFER WARREN > JENNIFER.WARREN at LMCO.COM ) > • Security, Openness and Privacy – (THERESA SWINEHART – > THERESA.SWINEHART at VERIZON.COM ) > • Access and Diversity – AYESHA HASSAN – AYESHA.HASSAN at ICCWBO.ORG > ) > • Taking Stock and the Way Forward - (ROMULO NEVES – > ROMULO.NEVES at ITAMARATY.GOV.BR ) > > Kindly inform your groups respectively. > > The deadline agreed was 1 March 2012. I recommend everyone to send in > their input before 27 Feb so the groups can complete their work. > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Internet Governance Advisor > ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Feb 20 13:10:55 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:10:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Day 1 - CSTD WG IGF - No. 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 02:29:28 on Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Izumi AIZU writes >Chair said - at the World Radio Congress of the ITU, the extended >meeting went so late to 6 am. We are much better :-) I've seen CSTD drafting sessions in Geneva going past midnight. Don't plan on flying out on Wednesday! -- 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 Mon Feb 20 14:03:29 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:03:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups In-Reply-To: <4F428BBF.2070503@eff.org> References: <4F428BBF.2070503@eff.org> Message-ID: Thanks Fouad and Katitza. I would suggest that various people from the IGC volunteer to steer discussions within IGC on the following: 1. Internet Governance for Development 2. Emerging Issues 3. Managing Critical Internet Resources 4. Security, Openness and Privacy 5. Access and Diversity 6. Taking Stock and the Way Forward One option is to initiate 6 separate threads within the Governance mailing list which are subject specific. People can find their respective flows and take the initiative to raise certain issues. It will also be good to draw from issues raised in the past IGFs which have yet to be resolved. The appropriate findings from the work of the Dynamic Coalition on Mapping Internet Governance should be considered by the various sub groups. People have the liberty to raise issues that they feel should be covered and canvassed. It will also be good to consolidate all the views and hear minority views and feed this into a central document. Current MAG members can then raise these issues for us as a list after consensus is reached on the various themes. *Suggested Time Frame* 20th February, 2012 - initiate consultation with IGC and invite feedback and consultations 24th February, 2012 - consolidate positions and perspectives and put to the list for 48 hour period of consensus 26th February, 2012 - finalise and put the list for final comments 27th February, 2012 - send to current MAG members to take our positions to the MAG Groups On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Dear all, > > As current MAG member, I have joined the SOP volunteer group. Can you > please let me know which issues are a priority for the IGC community, > please? > > Many thanks, Katitza > > > On 2/20/12 6:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Dear All, > > Please find attached the document containing the list of main session > themes and suggested sub topics as it stood at the end of the MAG meeting. > The intention is to have a facilitator that can work with all stakeholder > groups while the aim for each thematic working group is for their > respective themes is to: > > - consolidate the list of topics under the theme > - come up with a coherent description of the theme > - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme > (following the way we organized it last year). > > The following MAG members agreed to be facilitators/coordinators for the > online working groups, > > • IG4D – (FOUAD BAJWA – FOUADBAJWA at GMAIL.COM > ) > • Emerging Issues - (BILL GRAHAM – LIKEANARROW at GMAIL.COM > ) > • Managing Critical Internet Resources – (JENNIFER WARREN > JENNIFER.WARREN at LMCO.COM ) > • Security, Openness and Privacy – (THERESA SWINEHART – > THERESA.SWINEHART at VERIZON.COM > ) > • Access and Diversity – AYESHA HASSAN – AYESHA.HASSAN at ICCWBO.ORG > ) > • Taking Stock and the Way Forward - (ROMULO NEVES – > ROMULO.NEVES at ITAMARATY.GOV.BR ) > > Kindly inform your groups respectively. > > The deadline agreed was 1 March 2012. I recommend everyone to send in > their input before 27 Feb so the groups can complete their work. > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Internet Governance Advisor > ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundationkatitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 14:06:25 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:06:25 +1200 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups In-Reply-To: References: <4F428BBF.2070503@eff.org> Message-ID: Dear All, The boundaries of discussion was contained in Fouad's email: - consolidate the list of topics under the theme - come up with a coherent description of the theme - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme (following the way we organized it last year). Please also refer to the document that he attached. On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Fouad and Katitza. > > I would suggest that various people from the IGC volunteer to steer > discussions within IGC on the following: > > > 1. Internet Governance for Development > 2. Emerging Issues > 3. Managing Critical Internet Resources > 4. Security, Openness and Privacy > 5. Access and Diversity > 6. Taking Stock and the Way Forward > > One option is to initiate 6 separate threads within the Governance mailing > list which are subject specific. People can find their respective flows and > take the initiative to raise certain issues. > > It will also be good to draw from issues raised in the past IGFs which > have yet to be resolved. The appropriate findings from the work of the > Dynamic Coalition on Mapping Internet Governance should be considered by > the various sub groups. People have the liberty to raise issues that they > feel should be covered and canvassed. It will also be good to consolidate > all the views and hear minority views and feed this into a central > document. > > Current MAG members can then raise these issues for us as a list after > consensus is reached on the various themes. > > *Suggested Time Frame* > > 20th February, 2012 - initiate consultation with IGC and invite feedback > and consultations > > 24th February, 2012 - consolidate positions and perspectives and put to > the list for 48 hour period of consensus > 26th February, 2012 - finalise and put the list for final comments > 27th February, 2012 - send to current MAG members to take our positions to > the MAG Groups > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As current MAG member, I have joined the SOP volunteer group. Can you >> please let me know which issues are a priority for the IGC community, >> please? >> >> Many thanks, Katitza >> >> >> On 2/20/12 6:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please find attached the document containing the list of main session >> themes and suggested sub topics as it stood at the end of the MAG meeting. >> The intention is to have a facilitator that can work with all stakeholder >> groups while the aim for each thematic working group is for their >> respective themes is to: >> >> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >> (following the way we organized it last year). >> >> The following MAG members agreed to be facilitators/coordinators for the >> online working groups, >> >> • IG4D – (FOUAD BAJWA – FOUADBAJWA at GMAIL.COM >> ) >> • Emerging Issues - (BILL GRAHAM – LIKEANARROW at GMAIL.COM >> ) >> • Managing Critical Internet Resources – (JENNIFER WARREN >> JENNIFER.WARREN at LMCO.COM ) >> • Security, Openness and Privacy – (THERESA SWINEHART – >> THERESA.SWINEHART at VERIZON.COM >> ) >> • Access and Diversity – AYESHA HASSAN – AYESHA.HASSAN at ICCWBO.ORG >> ) >> • Taking Stock and the Way Forward - (ROMULO NEVES – >> ROMULO.NEVES at ITAMARATY.GOV.BR ) >> >> Kindly inform your groups respectively. >> >> The deadline agreed was 1 March 2012. I recommend everyone to send in >> their input before 27 Feb so the groups can complete their work. >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> Internet Governance Advisor >> ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundationkatitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Mon Feb 20 14:08:44 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:08:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups In-Reply-To: References: <4F428BBF.2070503@eff.org> Message-ID: <4F429A3C.5010102@eff.org> Hi Sala, The big problem I see in the proposed process is that the MAG working group deadline is on March 1, which means our very hot and intense discussions within MAG members from all stakeholder group will start next week. It's a long process of back and forth to get a consensus (some topics are easy than others). Ideally, this work should have been done before this recent MAG meeting held last week! That would give clear guidelines to the MAG civ. society members on how to proceed. MAG civ. society reps have already lot of work within the MAG. Hopefully if you can reduce your deadline, that would be great! In the future, IGC could have its own formal submission that could be delivered to the IGF secretariat before the MAG meeting. My two cents, K. On 2/20/12 11:03 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thanks Fouad and Katitza. > > I would suggest that various people from the IGC volunteer to steer > discussions within IGC on the following: > > 1. Internet Governance for Development > 2. Emerging Issues > 3. Managing Critical Internet Resources > 4. Security, Openness and Privacy > 5. Access and Diversity > 6. Taking Stock and the Way Forward > > One option is to initiate 6 separate threads within the Governance > mailing list which are subject specific. People can find their > respective flows and take the initiative to raise certain issues. > > It will also be good to draw from issues raised in the past IGFs > which have yet to be resolved. The appropriate findings from the work > of the Dynamic Coalition on Mapping Internet Governance should be > considered by the various sub groups. People have the liberty to raise > issues that they feel should be covered and canvassed. It will also be > good to consolidate all the views and hear minority views and feed > this into a central document. > > Current MAG members can then raise these issues for us as a list after > consensus is reached on the various themes. > > _*Suggested Time Frame*_ > > 20th February, 2012 - initiate consultation with IGC and invite > feedback and consultations > > 24th February, 2012 - consolidate positions and perspectives and put > to the list for 48 hour period of consensus > 26th February, 2012 - finalise and put the list for final comments > 27th February, 2012 - send to current MAG members to take our > positions to the MAG Groups > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: > > Dear all, > > As current MAG member, I have joined the SOP volunteer group. Can > you please let me know which issues are a priority for the IGC > community, please? > > Many thanks, Katitza > > > On 2/20/12 6:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Please find attached the document containing the list of main >> session themes and suggested sub topics as it stood at the end of >> the MAG meeting. The intention is to have a facilitator that can >> work with all stakeholder groups while the aim for each thematic >> working group is for their respective themes is to: >> >> * consolidate the list of topics under the theme >> * come up with a coherent description of the theme >> * come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >> (following the way we organized it last year). >> >> The following MAG members agreed to be facilitators/coordinators >> for the online working groups, >> >> • IG4D – (FOUAD BAJWA – FOUADBAJWA at GMAIL.COM >> ) >> • Emerging Issues - (BILL GRAHAM – LIKEANARROW at GMAIL.COM >> ) >> • Managing Critical Internet Resources – (JENNIFER WARREN >> JENNIFER.WARREN at LMCO.COM ) >> • Security, Openness and Privacy – (THERESA SWINEHART – >> THERESA.SWINEHART at VERIZON.COM >> ) >> • Access and Diversity – AYESHA HASSAN – AYESHA.HASSAN at ICCWBO.ORG >> ) >> • Taking Stock and the Way Forward - (ROMULO NEVES – >> ROMULO.NEVES at ITAMARATY.GOV.BR >> ) >> >> Kindly inform your groups respectively. >> >> The deadline agreed was 1 March 2012. I recommend everyone to >> send in their input before 27 Feb so the groups can complete >> their work. >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> Internet Governance Advisor >> ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: >> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 14:22:51 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:22:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups In-Reply-To: <4F429A3C.5010102@eff.org> References: <4F428BBF.2070503@eff.org> <4F429A3C.5010102@eff.org> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi Sala, > > The big problem I see in the proposed process is that the MAG working > group deadline is on March 1, which means our very hot and intense > discussions within MAG members from all stakeholder group will start next > week. It's a long process of back and forth to get a consensus (some topics > are easy than others). > > I agree. > Ideally, this work should have been done before this recent MAG meeting > held last week! That would give clear guidelines to the MAG civ. society > members on how to proceed. MAG civ. society reps have already lot of work > within the MAG. > > I agree and take responsibility for this. For now, we will just have to make do with the limited time we have. Hopefully if you can reduce your deadline, that would be great! In the > future, IGC could have its own formal submission that could be delivered to > the IGF secretariat before the MAG meeting. > Absolutely in the future, we will ensure that this is done well before time. Yes we can reduce the timeline and be flexible. Make some alternative suggestions to the timeline so we can get this rolling asap, please. Thanks Kaititza. You guys are doing a great job. > > My two cents, K. > > > On 2/20/12 11:03 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Thanks Fouad and Katitza. > > I would suggest that various people from the IGC volunteer to steer > discussions within IGC on the following: > > > 1. Internet Governance for Development > 2. Emerging Issues > 3. Managing Critical Internet Resources > 4. Security, Openness and Privacy > 5. Access and Diversity > 6. Taking Stock and the Way Forward > > One option is to initiate 6 separate threads within the Governance mailing > list which are subject specific. People can find their respective flows and > take the initiative to raise certain issues. > > It will also be good to draw from issues raised in the past IGFs which > have yet to be resolved. The appropriate findings from the work of the > Dynamic Coalition on Mapping Internet Governance should be considered by > the various sub groups. People have the liberty to raise issues that they > feel should be covered and canvassed. It will also be good to consolidate > all the views and hear minority views and feed this into a central > document. > > Current MAG members can then raise these issues for us as a list after > consensus is reached on the various themes. > > *Suggested Time Frame* > > 20th February, 2012 - initiate consultation with IGC and invite feedback > and consultations > > 24th February, 2012 - consolidate positions and perspectives and put to > the list for 48 hour period of consensus > 26th February, 2012 - finalise and put the list for final comments > 27th February, 2012 - send to current MAG members to take our positions to > the MAG Groups > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As current MAG member, I have joined the SOP volunteer group. Can you >> please let me know which issues are a priority for the IGC community, >> please? >> >> Many thanks, Katitza >> >> >> On 2/20/12 6:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Please find attached the document containing the list of main session >> themes and suggested sub topics as it stood at the end of the MAG meeting. >> The intention is to have a facilitator that can work with all stakeholder >> groups while the aim for each thematic working group is for their >> respective themes is to: >> >> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >> (following the way we organized it last year). >> >> The following MAG members agreed to be facilitators/coordinators for the >> online working groups, >> >> • IG4D – (FOUAD BAJWA – FOUADBAJWA at GMAIL.COM >> ) >> • Emerging Issues - (BILL GRAHAM – LIKEANARROW at GMAIL.COM >> ) >> • Managing Critical Internet Resources – (JENNIFER WARREN >> JENNIFER.WARREN at LMCO.COM ) >> • Security, Openness and Privacy – (THERESA SWINEHART – >> THERESA.SWINEHART at VERIZON.COM >> ) >> • Access and Diversity – AYESHA HASSAN – AYESHA.HASSAN at ICCWBO.ORG >> ) >> • Taking Stock and the Way Forward - (ROMULO NEVES – >> ROMULO.NEVES at ITAMARATY.GOV.BR ) >> >> Kindly inform your groups respectively. >> >> The deadline agreed was 1 March 2012. I recommend everyone to send in >> their input before 27 Feb so the groups can complete their work. >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa >> Internet Governance Advisor >> ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher >> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >> MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundationkatitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundationkatitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Mon Feb 20 14:48:09 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:48:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups In-Reply-To: <4F429A3C.5010102@eff.org> References: <4F428BBF.2070503@eff.org> <4F429A3C.5010102@eff.org> Message-ID: <4F42A379.4000606@eff.org> I do not see how you can reduce your time framework. IGC does not need a formal submission but just general guidelines/talking points/alternative options so civil society members can bring them into the discussion while negotiating back and forth with the MAG members from other stakeholder groups. Being said that: Ideally, we have tons of those comments by June 24. Start the process as soon as possible. Different threads would work so I can monitor the only thread I'm interested in. K. On 2/20/12 11:08 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi Sala, > > The big problem I see in the proposed process is that the MAG working > group deadline is on March 1, which means our very hot and intense > discussions within MAG members from all stakeholder group will start > next week. It's a long process of back and forth to get a consensus > (some topics are easy than others). > > Ideally, this work should have been done before this recent MAG > meeting held last week! That would give clear guidelines to the MAG > civ. society members on how to proceed. MAG civ. society reps have > already lot of work within the MAG. > > Hopefully if you can reduce your deadline, that would be great! In the > future, IGC could have its own formal submission that could be > delivered to the IGF secretariat before the MAG meeting. > > My two cents, K. > > On 2/20/12 11:03 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Thanks Fouad and Katitza. >> >> I would suggest that various people from the IGC volunteer to steer >> discussions within IGC on the following: >> >> 1. Internet Governance for Development >> 2. Emerging Issues >> 3. Managing Critical Internet Resources >> 4. Security, Openness and Privacy >> 5. Access and Diversity >> 6. Taking Stock and the Way Forward >> >> One option is to initiate 6 separate threads within the Governance >> mailing list which are subject specific. People can find their >> respective flows and take the initiative to raise certain issues. >> >> It will also be good to draw from issues raised in the past IGFs >> which have yet to be resolved. The appropriate findings from the work >> of the Dynamic Coalition on Mapping Internet Governance should be >> considered by the various sub groups. People have the liberty to >> raise issues that they feel should be covered and canvassed. It will >> also be good to consolidate all the views and hear minority views and >> feed this into a central document. >> >> Current MAG members can then raise these issues for us as a list >> after consensus is reached on the various themes. >> >> _*Suggested Time Frame*_ >> >> 20th February, 2012 - initiate consultation with IGC and invite >> feedback and consultations >> >> 24th February, 2012 - consolidate positions and perspectives and put >> to the list for 48 hour period of consensus >> 26th February, 2012 - finalise and put the list for final comments >> 27th February, 2012 - send to current MAG members to take our >> positions to the MAG Groups >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Katitza Rodriguez > > wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> As current MAG member, I have joined the SOP volunteer group. Can >> you please let me know which issues are a priority for the IGC >> community, please? >> >> Many thanks, Katitza >> >> >> On 2/20/12 6:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Please find attached the document containing the list of main >>> session themes and suggested sub topics as it stood at the end >>> of the MAG meeting. The intention is to have a facilitator that >>> can work with all stakeholder groups while the aim for each >>> thematic working group is for their respective themes is to: >>> >>> * consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>> * come up with a coherent description of the theme >>> * come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >>> (following the way we organized it last year). >>> >>> The following MAG members agreed to be facilitators/coordinators >>> for the online working groups, >>> >>> • IG4D – (FOUAD BAJWA – FOUADBAJWA at GMAIL.COM >>> ) >>> • Emerging Issues - (BILL GRAHAM – LIKEANARROW at GMAIL.COM >>> ) >>> • Managing Critical Internet Resources – (JENNIFER WARREN >>> JENNIFER.WARREN at LMCO.COM ) >>> • Security, Openness and Privacy – (THERESA SWINEHART – >>> THERESA.SWINEHART at VERIZON.COM >>> ) >>> • Access and Diversity – AYESHA HASSAN – >>> AYESHA.HASSAN at ICCWBO.ORG ) >>> • Taking Stock and the Way Forward - (ROMULO NEVES – >>> ROMULO.NEVES at ITAMARATY.GOV.BR >>> ) >>> >>> Kindly inform your groups respectively. >>> >>> The deadline agreed was 1 March 2012. I recommend everyone to >>> send in their input before 27 Feb so the groups can complete >>> their work. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards. >>> -------------------------- >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> Internet Governance Advisor >>> ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher >>> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >>> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: >>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>> MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> katitza at eff.org >> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Mon Feb 20 14:49:23 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:49:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups In-Reply-To: <4F42A379.4000606@eff.org> References: <4F428BBF.2070503@eff.org> <4F429A3C.5010102@eff.org> <4F42A379.4000606@eff.org> Message-ID: <4F42A3C3.2010508@eff.org> Feb 24, I meant to say. On 2/20/12 11:48 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > I do not see how you can reduce your time framework. IGC does not need > a formal submission but just general guidelines/talking > points/alternative options so civil society members can bring them > into the discussion while negotiating back and forth with the MAG > members from other stakeholder groups. > > Being said that: Ideally, we have tons of those comments by Feb 24. > > Start the process as soon as possible. Different threads would work so > I can monitor the only thread I'm interested in. > > K. > > On 2/20/12 11:08 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Hi Sala, >> >> The big problem I see in the proposed process is that the MAG working >> group deadline is on March 1, which means our very hot and intense >> discussions within MAG members from all stakeholder group will start >> next week. It's a long process of back and forth to get a consensus >> (some topics are easy than others). >> >> Ideally, this work should have been done before this recent MAG >> meeting held last week! That would give clear guidelines to the MAG >> civ. society members on how to proceed. MAG civ. society reps have >> already lot of work within the MAG. >> >> Hopefully if you can reduce your deadline, that would be great! In >> the future, IGC could have its own formal submission that could be >> delivered to the IGF secretariat before the MAG meeting. >> >> My two cents, K. >> >> On 2/20/12 11:03 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Thanks Fouad and Katitza. >>> >>> I would suggest that various people from the IGC volunteer to steer >>> discussions within IGC on the following: >>> >>> 1. Internet Governance for Development >>> 2. Emerging Issues >>> 3. Managing Critical Internet Resources >>> 4. Security, Openness and Privacy >>> 5. Access and Diversity >>> 6. Taking Stock and the Way Forward >>> >>> One option is to initiate 6 separate threads within the Governance >>> mailing list which are subject specific. People can find their >>> respective flows and take the initiative to raise certain issues. >>> >>> It will also be good to draw from issues raised in the past IGFs >>> which have yet to be resolved. The appropriate findings from the >>> work of the Dynamic Coalition on Mapping Internet Governance should >>> be considered by the various sub groups. People have the liberty to >>> raise issues that they feel should be covered and canvassed. It will >>> also be good to consolidate all the views and hear minority views >>> and feed this into a central document. >>> >>> Current MAG members can then raise these issues for us as a list >>> after consensus is reached on the various themes. >>> >>> _*Suggested Time Frame*_ >>> >>> 20th February, 2012 - initiate consultation with IGC and invite >>> feedback and consultations >>> >>> 24th February, 2012 - consolidate positions and perspectives and put >>> to the list for 48 hour period of consensus >>> 26th February, 2012 - finalise and put the list for final comments >>> 27th February, 2012 - send to current MAG members to take our >>> positions to the MAG Groups >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Katitza Rodriguez >> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As current MAG member, I have joined the SOP volunteer group. >>> Can you please let me know which issues are a priority for the >>> IGC community, please? >>> >>> Many thanks, Katitza >>> >>> >>> On 2/20/12 6:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Please find attached the document containing the list of main >>>> session themes and suggested sub topics as it stood at the end >>>> of the MAG meeting. The intention is to have a facilitator >>>> that can work with all stakeholder groups while the aim for >>>> each thematic working group is for their respective themes is to: >>>> >>>> * consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>>> * come up with a coherent description of the theme >>>> * come up with a main question and sub questions for the >>>> theme (following the way we organized it last year). >>>> >>>> The following MAG members agreed to be >>>> facilitators/coordinators for the online working groups, >>>> >>>> • IG4D – (FOUAD BAJWA – FOUADBAJWA at GMAIL.COM >>>> ) >>>> • Emerging Issues - (BILL GRAHAM – LIKEANARROW at GMAIL.COM >>>> ) >>>> • Managing Critical Internet Resources – (JENNIFER WARREN >>>> JENNIFER.WARREN at LMCO.COM >>>> ) >>>> • Security, Openness and Privacy – (THERESA SWINEHART – >>>> THERESA.SWINEHART at VERIZON.COM >>>> ) >>>> • Access and Diversity – AYESHA HASSAN – >>>> AYESHA.HASSAN at ICCWBO.ORG >>>> ) >>>> • Taking Stock and the Way Forward - (ROMULO NEVES – >>>> ROMULO.NEVES at ITAMARATY.GOV.BR >>>> ) >>>> >>>> Kindly inform your groups respectively. >>>> >>>> The deadline agreed was 1 March 2012. I recommend everyone to >>>> send in their input before 27 Feb so the groups can complete >>>> their work. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards. >>>> -------------------------- >>>> Fouad Bajwa >>>> Internet Governance Advisor >>>> ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher >>>> Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) >>>> Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >>>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: >>>> http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ >>>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa >>>> MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Katitza Rodriguez >>> International Rights Director >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> katitza at eff.org >>> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >>> >>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> katitza at eff.org >> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 15:34:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:34:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance for Development [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Message-ID: Dear All, The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with the following:- - consolidate the list of topics under the theme - come up with a coherent description of the theme - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme (following the way it was organised in 2011) We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Internet Governance for Development by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG representatives to take this forward. Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows. I would strongly invite those in developing countries or emerging markets to contribute their thoughts etc. § A. INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES FRAMEWORK § B. BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE · FACILITATING PARTICIPATION FOR ALL IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY AND KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY · PROMOTING HUMAN, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT · CONTRIBUTING TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION · INFRASTRUCTURE, INVESTMENT ISSUES · SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES § [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK] § A. INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES FRAMEWORK § B. BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE · FACILITATING PARTICIPATION FOR ALL IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY AND KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY · PROMOTING HUMAN, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT · CONTRIBUTING TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION · INFRASTRUCTURE, INVESTMENT ISSUES · SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES § [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK] -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 15:36:44 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:36:44 +1200 Subject: [governance] Emerging Issues [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Message-ID: Dear All, The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with the following:- - consolidate the list of topics under the theme - come up with a coherent description of the theme - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme (following the way it was organised in 2011) We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Emerging Issues by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG representatives to take this forward. Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows:- 1) MEASURES TO PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN BALANCE WITH CREATIVITY INCENTIVES 2) TECHNICAL MEASURES AND USE OF INTERMEDIARIES AS INSTRUMENTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTERMEDIARY SAFE HARBORS 3) ACCESS TO CONTENT, NEW MODELS, COMMON CHALLENGES AND HYBRID TELEVISION 4) USER GENERATED CONTENT: RELIABILTY AND RESPONSIBILITY 5) LEGISLATIVE ISSUES 6) CREATIVITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 7) INNOVATION ON THE INTERNET 8) INTERNET AND TRADITIONAL MEDIA FOR DISASTER RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT 9) LOW COST MOBILE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET 10) THE NETWORKED INDIVIDUAL AND EXPANDED POWER OF FREEDOM -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 15:38:52 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:38:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Message-ID: Dear All, The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with the following:- - consolidate the list of topics under the theme - come up with a coherent description of the theme - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme (following the way it was organised in 2011) We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Managing Critical Internet Resources by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG representatives to take this forward. Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows. 1) IXPs 2) [SMART GRIDS] 3) MIGRATION OF RESOURCES STARTING TO RUN OVER IP [MIGRATION OF RESOURCES] 4) INTERNET OF THINGS 5) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 15:41:28 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:41:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights: Security, Openness and Privacy [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Message-ID: Dear All, The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with the following:- - consolidate the list of topics under the theme - come up with a coherent description of the theme - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme (following the way it was organised in 2011) We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on *[HUMAN RIGHTS:] SECURITY, OPENNESS AND PRIVACY [AND THEIR IMPACT ON HUMAN RIGHTS] *by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG representatives to take this forward. Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows:- 1) HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE INTERNET 2) FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION 3) LEGAL FRAMEWORK REGULATING FREE FLOW 4) [FILTERING] 5) FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES, 6) INTERNET FRAGMENTATION 7) INFORMATION SUPPRESSION AND SURVEILLANCE 8) CROSS-BORDER DATA FLOW 9) ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE 10) CYBERSECURITY, CYBERCRIME AND CLOUD COMPUTING 11) ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION 12) INTERACTION WITH INDUSTRY / COOPERATION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN BALANCE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS 13) SAFEGUARDS 14) [INTERNET AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY] / [INTERNET AS A TOOL OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS] Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 15:43:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:43:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Message-ID: Dear All, The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with the following:- - consolidate the list of topics under the theme - come up with a coherent description of the theme - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme (following the way it was organised in 2011) We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Access and Diversity by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG representatives to take this forward. Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows:- 1) ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION] [HUMAN RIGHTS ] 2) [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], [CONTROLLING / REGULATORY ISSUES] 3) MULTILINGUALISM 4) WOMEN EMPOWERMENT 5) LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY 6) [PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION] PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 7) OPEN DATA AND RELATED POLICIES 8) INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH 9) YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE 10) HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS 11) [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK] 12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES? 13) [FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES] 14) [PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI] 15) [INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF THE DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD COUNTRIES] 16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS] -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 20 15:43:01 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:43:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fouad, Thanks for sharing the document. I've converted it into Google Docs so that we can all comment and revise in a collaborative fashion. Document is available at the following URL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_056iP7sVxaXkPI732vTNZfAUrVVRofO1iGBYEsevIo/edit I believe that it might also be helpful that the list suggest constructive revisions that better describe and/or re-formulate the list of topics & sub-topics. regards Robert On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find attached the document containing the list of main session > themes and suggested sub topics as it stood at the end of the MAG meeting. > The intention is to have a facilitator that can work with all stakeholder > groups while the aim for each thematic working group is for their > respective themes is to: > > - consolidate the list of topics under the theme > - come up with a coherent description of the theme > - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme > (following the way we organized it last year). > > The following MAG members agreed to be facilitators/coordinators for the > online working groups, > > • IG4D – (FOUAD BAJWA – FOUADBAJWA at GMAIL.COM > ) > • Emerging Issues - (BILL GRAHAM – LIKEANARROW at GMAIL.COM > ) > • Managing Critical Internet Resources – (JENNIFER WARREN > JENNIFER.WARREN at LMCO.COM ) > • Security, Openness and Privacy – (THERESA SWINEHART – > THERESA.SWINEHART at VERIZON.COM > ) > • Access and Diversity – AYESHA HASSAN – AYESHA.HASSAN at ICCWBO.ORG > ) > • Taking Stock and the Way Forward - (ROMULO NEVES – > ROMULO.NEVES at ITAMARATY.GOV.BR ) > > Kindly inform your groups respectively. > > The deadline agreed was 1 March 2012. I recommend everyone to send in > their input before 27 Feb so the groups can complete their work. > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Internet Governance Advisor > ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 15:45:29 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:45:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Message-ID: Dear All, The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with the following:- - consolidate the list of topics under the theme - come up with a coherent description of the theme - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme (following the way it was organised in 2011) We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Taking Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG representatives to take this forward. Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows:- 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? 2) IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA 3) ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET 4) SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Mon Feb 20 15:51:29 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:51:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Day 1 - CSTD WG IGF - No. 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Chair is Peter Major of Hungary. I booked my flight on Thursday! many thanks, izumi 2012/2/21 Roland Perry : > In message > , at > 02:29:28 on Tue, 21 Feb 2012, Izumi AIZU writes > >> Chair said - at the World Radio Congress of the ITU, the extended >> meeting went so late to 6 am. We are much better :-) > > > I've seen CSTD drafting sessions in Geneva going past midnight. Don't plan > on flying out on Wednesday! > -- > 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 > --                         >> 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 tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Mon Feb 20 16:19:16 2012 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:19:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Human Rights: Security, Openness and Privacy [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello all, (and many thanks Sala for providing these threads and co-ordinating this all) A few quick views: ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE; INTERNET AS TOOL OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION I'm particularly interested in the 'Access to Knowledge' and 'Internet as a tool of public consultations' themes, although for the later, I would suggest framing it as 'Internet as a tool of public /participation/' rather than /consultation/ would be better - to capture the diverse range of ways in which the Internet is a tool for connecting governments, governance and citizens. ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION: On the suggestion for (11) on 'Online child protection', I would really like to see this framed as 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision and Participation', rather than solely 'child protection', particularly as this is falling under a 'human rights' heading. I've written a bit on the justification for this at http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23226/ - but essentially, when we adopt narrow narratives of 'online child protection' we end up (a) neglecting children and young people's broader set of rights to be active participants on the web, and to safe and supportive online provision; and (b) we adopt counter-productive strategies which don't even serve the intended goals of keeping young people safe from harm online. Personally I'd love to see some good engagement in a theme like this between IGF and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child ( http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/), but I've not succeeded in the past at working out how best to make that happen: all thoughts welcome. All the best Tim On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, > Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with > the following:- > > - consolidate the list of topics under the theme > - come up with a coherent description of the theme > - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme > (following the way it was organised in 2011) > > We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on *[HUMAN > RIGHTS:] SECURITY, OPENNESS AND PRIVACY [AND THEIR IMPACT ON HUMAN RIGHTS] > *by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this > opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try > to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work > on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to > the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG > representatives to take this forward. > > Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows:- > > > 1) HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE INTERNET > > 2) FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION > > 3) LEGAL FRAMEWORK REGULATING FREE FLOW > > 4) [FILTERING] > > 5) FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES, > > 6) INTERNET FRAGMENTATION > > 7) INFORMATION SUPPRESSION AND SURVEILLANCE > > 8) CROSS-BORDER DATA FLOW > > 9) ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE > > 10) CYBERSECURITY, CYBERCRIME AND CLOUD COMPUTING > > 11) ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION > > 12) INTERACTION WITH INDUSTRY / COOPERATION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR AND LAW > ENFORCEMENT IN BALANCE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS > > 13) SAFEGUARDS > > 14) [INTERNET AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY] / > [INTERNET AS A TOOL OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS] > > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 16:21:38 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:21:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Message-ID: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thanks for your invitation. I would suggest some following topics to be included: 17. Maximum utilization of open/free Band Frequency spectrum i.e. "ISM Band" 18. Information Sharing Sensitivity Awareness. 19. Internet for Women 20. Internet for Kids 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local language. 22. Privacy on Social Networking and Mobile Internet Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah ------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:43 AM PKT Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human,>Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with>the following:->> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme> - come up with a coherent description of the theme> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme> (following the way it was organised in 2011)>>We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Access and>Diversity by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this>opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try>to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work>on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to>the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG>representatives to take this forward.>>Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows:->>>1) ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION] [HUMAN>RIGHTS ]>>2) [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], [CONTROLLING / REGULATORY ISSUES]>>3) MULTILINGUALISM>>4) WOMEN EMPOWERMENT>>5) LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY>>6) [PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION] PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES>>7) OPEN DATA AND RELATED POLICIES>>8) INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH>>9) YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE>>10) HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS>>11) [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK]>>12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?>>13) [FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES]>>14) [PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI]>>15) [INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF THE DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN>NEIGHBORHOOD COUNTRIES]>>16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS]>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>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 tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Mon Feb 20 16:28:32 2012 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:28:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Imran, These are good suggestions. On your suggested (20), Internet for Kids, one of the ways I've tried to encourage addressing this in the past is encouraging talk of 'Children, young people, and young adults' in place of the term 'youth' which tends to get widely used to cover a blanket group from 0 to 30+. What would you think about advocating for a reshaping of theme (8) INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH into something like: 'IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET' with sub-questions such as: - How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? - How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth to contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged? - What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address issues for children, young people and young adults? All the best Tim On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Thanks for your invitation. > I would suggest some following topics to be included: > > 17. Maximum utilization of open/free Band Frequency spectrum i.e. "ISM > Band" > 18. Information Sharing Sensitivity Awareness. > 19. Internet for Women > 20. Internet for Kids > 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local > language. > 22. Privacy on Social Networking and Mobile Internet > Thanks > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > ------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:43 AM PKT Salanieta > T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet > Governance for Sustainable Human,>Economic and Social Development. The MAG > has various groups dealing with>the following:->> - consolidate the list > of topics under the theme> - come up with a coherent description of the > theme> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme> > (following the way it was organised in 2011)>>We would encourage anyone > interested in putting forward views on Access and>Diversity by responding > to this thread. We would like to ensure that this>opportunity for > consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try>to wrap this up > by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work>on > consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to>the > entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current > MAG>representatives to take this > forward.>>Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are > as follows:->>>1) ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF > EXPRESSION] [HUMAN>RIGHTS ]>>2) [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], > [CONTROLLING / REGULATORY ISSUES]>>3) MULTILINGUALISM>>4) WOMEN > EMPOWERMENT>>5) LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY>>6) [PARTICIPATION AND > INCLUSION] PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES>>7) OPEN DATA AND RELATED > POLICIES>>8) INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH>>9) YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN > INTERNET GOVERNANCE>>10) HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS>>11) [HOW TO > HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK]>>12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER > ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?>>13) [FRAMEWORKS AND > PRINCIPLES]>>14) [PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI]>>15) [INSTITUTIONAL > COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF THE DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN>NEIGHBORHOOD > COUNTRIES]>>16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR > ACCESS]>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka > Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 > 998 2851 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Mon Feb 20 16:31:29 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:31:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F42BBB1.2050309@eff.org> Hi Sala, Please noted that civil society can come with its own topic and not necessarily agreed with the topics proposed by other MAG members from other stakeholder groups (unless we really want to discuss a topic). It is important to have that distinction clear so civil society can articulate its own agenda. On 2/20/12 12:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, > Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing > with the following:- > > * consolidate the list of topics under the theme > * come up with a coherent description of the theme > * come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme > (following the way it was organised in 2011) > > We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on > Managing Critical Internet Resources by responding to this thread. We > would like to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is > actively addressed by the list. We will try to wrap this up by the > 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work on consolidating > the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to the entire > list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG > representatives to take this forward. > > Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as > follows. > > 1)IXPs > > 2)[SMART GRIDS] > > 3)MIGRATION OF RESOURCES STARTING TO RUN OVER IP [MIGRATION OF RESOURCES] > > 4)INTERNET OF THINGS > > 5)SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC > INTEREST > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 17:23:03 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:23:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <4F42BBB1.2050309@eff.org> References: <4F42BBB1.2050309@eff.org> Message-ID: Thanks Katitza. On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Hi Sala, > > Please noted that civil society can come with its own topic and not > necessarily agreed with the topics proposed by other MAG members from other > stakeholder groups (unless we really want to discuss a topic). It is > important to have that distinction clear so civil society can articulate > its own agenda. > > > On 2/20/12 12:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, > Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with > the following:- > > - consolidate the list of topics under the theme > - come up with a coherent description of the theme > - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme > (following the way it was organised in 2011) > > We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Managing > Critical Internet Resources by responding to this thread. We would like to > ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the > list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can > volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so > it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our > current MAG representatives to take this forward. > > Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows. > > > > 1) IXPs > > 2) [SMART GRIDS] > > 3) MIGRATION OF RESOURCES STARTING TO RUN OVER IP [MIGRATION OF > RESOURCES] > > 4) INTERNET OF THINGS > > 5) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC > INTEREST > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundationkatitza at eff.orgkatitza@datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 18:16:57 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:16:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: <4F426DAB.1050309@digsys.bg> Message-ID: > > > On 20.02.12 15:07, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Using information collected illegally doesn't make its use legal. It >> doesn't matter whether or not a fly by night company was used as a stooge. >> Google knew very well they were violating privacy laws. Since the only >> thing they care of is money, the appropriate reaction should be a fine, in >> the range of one month revenue. >> - - - >> > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 16:58, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > Indeed. But -- has this happened to Google? This is certainly not the > first time they are suspected to collect private information. > > If no such actions are effected on Google, then apparently someone wants > Google to operate this way... which is actually worse, than one company's > greed. > - - - > > Last year Google was fined €100,000 in France. Also it was under threat of €1,000,000 fine by the Dutch Data Protection Authority. Less than a 7-digit fine is just trifle for Google. As Marie noted, more expeditious penalties would be more effective. Louis see pdf attachments in English http://www.cnil.fr/la-cnil/actu-cnil/article/article/google-street-view-la-cnil-prononce-une-amende-de-100-000-euros/ http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=fr&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.fr&sl=fr&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.numerama.com/magazine/imprimer/18612-pays-bas-google-street-view-risque-une-amende-d-un-million-d-euros.html&usg=ALkJrhiqfI-5SPT8fe-GiIlc-RzkBxQ4LA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Google_fined_100Keuros.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49028 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Google ceases violation of privacy law.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 39413 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 Mon Feb 20 21:09:44 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:09:44 +1200 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I agree with Imran's additions and Tim's comments. Some initial thoughts. I agree with how Tim framed the theme: * * *'IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET' * - *How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions?* - How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth to contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged? - *What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address issues for children, young people and young adults?* 1) ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION] [HUMAN RIGHTS ] *2) [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], [CONTROLLING / REGULATORY ISSUES]* * * [It will be good to tease out various issues]* * - *When is filtering acceptable?* - How do you balance filtering content and freedom of expression? - *What should regulators consider when creating policies?* - Balancing of rights - Intellectual Property Rights vrs Freedom of Expression vrs Privacy *3) MULTILINGUALISM* I agree with Imran's 21. - *[Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local language]. (I enjoyed one of the sessions that Olga hosted in Nairobi) It would be good to encourage these sorts of sessions. * - Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) [It would be good to hear panels that comprises of the IETF, ICANN and ITU] to update the community on the work that is being done by these organisations on IDNs and explore some of the controversial elements of IDNs; - *UNESCO also presented some very good sessions etc;* - Global Policy Consultations should factor "multilingualism" etc; 4) WOMEN EMPOWERMENT I agree. 5) LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY - [*THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE BASED POLICIES: Shared Lessons*] I find that many countries do not have broadband policies or evidence based policies; - *[Impact of Regulatory Models on Human, Social and Economic Development]* * * * * *6) [PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION] PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES* - Update on Work done by W3C and others in a Panel - *The need to factor this into ICT Policies etc* 7) OPEN DATA AND RELATED POLICIES 8) INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH 9) YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE 10) HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS 11) [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK] 12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES? 13) [FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES] 14) [PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI] 15) [INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF THE DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD COUNTRIES] *16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS]* - This is critical because spectrum technology has to become more efficient and whilst developed countries have mechanisms and proper standards in place etc often developing countries lag behind and all kinds of issues such as "Anti Dumping etc"; - *Standards etc* On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Tim Davies < tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: > Hello Imran, > > These are good suggestions. On your suggested (20), Internet for Kids, one > of the ways I've tried to encourage addressing this in the past is > encouraging talk of 'Children, young people, and young adults' in place of > the term 'youth' which tends to get widely used to cover a blanket group > from 0 to 30+. > > What would you think about advocating for a reshaping of theme (8) INTERNET > IMPACT ON YOUTH into something like: > > 'IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG > ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET' > > with sub-questions such as: > > - How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? > > - How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth to > contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged? > > - What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address > issues for children, young people and young adults? > > > All the best > > Tim > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> >> Thanks for your invitation. >> I would suggest some following topics to be included: >> >> 17. Maximum utilization of open/free Band Frequency spectrum i.e. "ISM >> Band" >> 18. Information Sharing Sensitivity Awareness. >> 19. Internet for Women >> 20. Internet for Kids >> 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local >> language. >> 22. Privacy on Social Networking and Mobile Internet >> Thanks >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> ------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:43 AM PKT Salanieta >> T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet >> Governance for Sustainable Human,>Economic and Social Development. The MAG >> has various groups dealing with>the following:->> - consolidate the list >> of topics under the theme> - come up with a coherent description of the >> theme> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme> >> (following the way it was organised in 2011)>>We would encourage anyone >> interested in putting forward views on Access and>Diversity by responding >> to this thread. We would like to ensure that this>opportunity for >> consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try>to wrap this up >> by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work>on >> consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to>the >> entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current >> MAG>representatives to take this >> forward.>>Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are >> as follows:->>>1) ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF >> EXPRESSION] [HUMAN>RIGHTS ]>>2) [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], >> [CONTROLLING / REGULATORY ISSUES]>>3) MULTILINGUALISM>>4) WOMEN >> EMPOWERMENT>>5) LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY>>6) [PARTICIPATION AND >> INCLUSION] PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES>>7) OPEN DATA AND RELATED >> POLICIES>>8) INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH>>9) YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN >> INTERNET GOVERNANCE>>10) HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS>>11) [HOW TO >> HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK]>>12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER >> ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?>>13) [FRAMEWORKS AND >> PRINCIPLES]>>14) [PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI]>>15) [INSTITUTIONAL >> COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF THE DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN>NEIGHBORHOOD >> COUNTRIES]>>16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR >> ACCESS]>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka >> Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 >> 998 2851 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - > #5381958. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 21:13:33 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:13:33 +1200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights: Security, Openness and Privacy [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Tim Davies < tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: > Hello all, (and many thanks Sala for providing these threads and > co-ordinating this all) > > A few quick views: > > ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE; INTERNET AS TOOL OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION > I'm particularly interested in the 'Access to Knowledge' and 'Internet as > a tool of public consultations' themes, although for the later, I would > suggest framing it as 'Internet as a tool of public /participation/' rather > than /consultation/ would be better - to capture the diverse range of ways > in which the Internet is a tool for connecting governments, governance and > citizens. > > ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION: > On the suggestion for (11) on 'Online child protection', I would really > like to see this framed as 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision and > Participation', rather than solely 'child protection', particularly as this > is falling under a 'human rights' heading. > > I've written a bit on the justification for this at > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23226/ - but essentially, when we adopt > narrow narratives of 'online child protection' we end up (a) neglecting > children and young people's broader set of rights to be active participants > on the web, and to safe and supportive online provision; and (b) we adopt > counter-productive strategies which don't even serve the intended goals of > keeping young people safe from harm online. > > Personally I'd love to see some good engagement in a theme like this > between IGF and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child ( > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/), but I've not succeeded in the > past at working out how best to make that happen: all thoughts welcome. > > I agree. It will be good to coordinate between different regions on how to make this happen. We can start bottom up as well. We can try through UNICEF etc. > All the best > > Tim > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with >> the following:- >> >> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >> (following the way it was organised in 2011) >> >> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on *[HUMAN >> RIGHTS:] SECURITY, OPENNESS AND PRIVACY [AND THEIR IMPACT ON HUMAN RIGHTS] >> *by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this >> opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try >> to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work >> on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to >> the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG >> representatives to take this forward. >> >> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >> follows:- >> >> >> 1) HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE INTERNET >> >> 2) FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION >> >> 3) LEGAL FRAMEWORK REGULATING FREE FLOW >> >> 4) [FILTERING] >> >> 5) FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES, >> >> 6) INTERNET FRAGMENTATION >> >> 7) INFORMATION SUPPRESSION AND SURVEILLANCE >> >> 8) CROSS-BORDER DATA FLOW >> >> 9) ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE >> >> 10) CYBERSECURITY, CYBERCRIME AND CLOUD COMPUTING >> >> 11) ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION >> >> 12) INTERACTION WITH INDUSTRY / COOPERATION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR AND LAW >> ENFORCEMENT IN BALANCE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS >> >> 13) SAFEGUARDS >> >> 14) [INTERNET AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY] / >> [INTERNET AS A TOOL OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS] >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - > #5381958. > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 21:39:09 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:39:09 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, > Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with > the following:- > > - consolidate the list of topics under the theme > - come up with a coherent description of the theme > - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme > (following the way it was organised in 2011) > > We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Managing > Critical Internet Resources by responding to this thread. We would like to > ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the > list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can > volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so > it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our > current MAG representatives to take this forward. > > Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows. > > > > 1) IXPs > > 2) [SMART GRIDS] > > 3) MIGRATION OF RESOURCES STARTING TO RUN OVER IP [MIGRATION OF > RESOURCES] > - Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared Lessons] - - Getting various stakeholders within developing countries particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater cohesion in the area of policy; - It will be good to see various regulatory practices around the world etc 4) INTERNET OF THINGS > > 5) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC > INTEREST > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 20 22:35:37 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:35:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Sala, My 2 cents: I see 3 topics here not 5: 1) IXPs & MIGRATION OF RESOURCES * Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared Lessons] * * Getting various stakeholders within developing countries particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater cohesion in the area of policy; * It will be good to see various regulatory practices around the world etc 2) [SMART GRIDS] & INTERNET OF THINGS * Personally I call this category - wireless grids. fyi we are on track towards releasing version 0.1 open specs March 26 @ TEDxHarlem. Anyway, smart grids, generally speaking, aren't that smart; and the 'things' in isolation are just - things. So real issue is how does one share resources among grids and things; and not pretend all life will be in the cloud so who needs to worry our pretty little heads about who controls what - resources, including things. In sum, imho these 2 together are more interesting and relevant for IGF than either alone, which odds are would turn into corporate sales pitches for particular big brands...in the usual suspect category 3) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST (Sounds good to me; though I wonder what our ITU friends will think of IGF engaging on spectrum allocation ; ) Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 00:33:50 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:33:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: <4F426DAB.1050309@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <1329802430.24495.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> With reference to piracy of data, Google has accepted a huge fine through the court orders. Googlepaida near-record $500 million criminal forfeiture penalty. He also was ordered to pay the cost of pirated material. Thus, in return, Google got the ownership of the data and contents of the Users. Google is making them pay for their material and getting ownership rights legally through a middle company.   >________________________________ >From: Louis Pouzin (well) >To: Daniel Kalchev >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marie Georges >Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 4:16 >Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know > > > >>On 20.02.12 15:07, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> >>Using information collected illegally doesn't make its use legal. It doesn't matter whether or not a fly by night company was used as a stooge. Google knew very well they were violating privacy laws. Since the only thing they care of is money, the appropriate reaction should be a fine, in the range of one month revenue. >>>- - - >>> > >On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 16:58, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >>Indeed. But -- has this happened to Google? This is certainly not the first time they are suspected to collect private information. >> >>If no such actions are effected on Google, then apparently someone wants Google to operate this way... which is actually worse, than one company's greed. >>- - - >> >> >Last year Google was fined €100,000 in France. Also it was under threat of €1,000,000 fine by the Dutch Data Protection Authority. Less than a 7-digit fine is just trifle for Google. > >As Marie noted, more expeditious penalties would be more effective. > >Louis > >see pdf attachments in English > >http://www.cnil.fr/la-cnil/actu-cnil/article/article/google-street-view-la-cnil-prononce-une-amende-de-100-000-euros/ > >http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=fr&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.fr&sl=fr&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.numerama.com/magazine/imprimer/18612-pays-bas-google-street-view-risque-une-amende-d-un-million-d-euros.html&usg=ALkJrhiqfI-5SPT8fe-GiIlc-RzkBxQ4LA > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 21 01:16:47 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:16:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: <1329802430.24495.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <4F426DAB.1050309@digsys.bg> <1329802430.24495.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > With reference to piracy of data, Google has accepted a huge fine through > the court orders. It was actually a fine negotiated with the Department of Justice, not a court ordered fine. and it wasn't about piracy of data at all. Googlepaida near-record $500 million criminal forfeiture > penalty. I'm not sure it was "criminal" in that one has to be found guilty of a crime to be a "criminal". He also was ordered to pay the cost of pirated material. Thus, in > return, Google got the ownership of the data and contents of the Users. I can't parse this. The $500 million represents the money Google made from selling the drug ads, plus the revenue earned by Canadian pharmacies from sales to American customers. All google got out of it in the end was a black eye. > Google is making them pay for their material and getting ownership rights > legally through a middle company. ???? They had to stop selling ads from Canadian pharmacies. On the Internet, if a product is free, you are not a customer, you are the product! -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 02:15:21 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:15:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thanks Tim, for your comments, I agree with the sub-questions.   However, what do you think if the we keep the main Title of "Internet for Kids" as a seperate theme and yes, theme # 11, Child Protection will be covered under this main theme.    If you speak regarding the age as you mentioned "from 0 to 30+", I think it is not necessary to mention the age, otherwise, it could be upto 80+ Kids. Sub-Questions may include:     - Clean Contents Development Awareness Compaign for the Kids Internet.     - Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance, (that is beyond the Contents Filtering for Kids)     - Vote for the Provisioning of dot-Kids (gTLD with IDN translations)     - Compaign for Free Access to Kids Internet for Next Generation.   . Russia's dot-РФ registry has announced plans to apply for the top level domain dot-kids . In the 107th Congress, legislation sought to create a "kids-friendly top level domain name" that would contain only age-appropriate content. The Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002 was signed into law on December 4, 2002 (P.L. 107-317) and authorizes the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to require the .us registry operator (currently NeuStar) to establish, operate, and maintain a second level domain within the .us TLD that is restricted to material suitable for minors.     Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah > >Hello Imran,  > > >These are good suggestions. On your suggested (20), Internet for Kids, one of the ways I've tried to encourage addressing this in the past is encouraging talk of 'Children, young people, and young adults' in place of the term 'youth' which tends to get widely used to cover a blanket group from 0 to 30+.  > > >What would you think about advocating for a reshaping of theme (8)  INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH into something like: > > >'IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET'  > > >with sub-questions such as: > > >- How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? > > >- How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth to contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged?  > > >- What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address issues for children, young people and young adults? > > > > >All the best > > >Tim > > >On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > >>Thanks for your invitation. >>I would suggest some following topics to be included: >> >>17. Maximum utilization of open/free Band Frequency spectrum i.e. "ISM Band" >>18. Information Sharing Sensitivity Awareness. >>19. Internet for Women >>20. Internet for Kids >>21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local language. >>22. Privacy on Social Networking and Mobile Internet >>Thanks >> >>Imran Ahmed Shah >> >>------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:43 AM PKT Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human,>Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with>the following:->>   - consolidate the list of topics under the theme>   - come up with a coherent description of the theme>   - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme>   (following the way it was organised in 2011)>>We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Access and>Diversity by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this>opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try>to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work>on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to>the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG>representatives to take this >> >> forward.>>Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows:->>>1)    ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION] [HUMAN>RIGHTS ]>>2)    [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], [CONTROLLING / REGULATORY ISSUES]>>3)    MULTILINGUALISM>>4)    WOMEN EMPOWERMENT>>5)    LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY>>6)     [PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION] PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES>>7)    OPEN DATA AND RELATED POLICIES>>8)    INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH>>9)    YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE>>10) HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS>>11) [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK]>>12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?>>13) [FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES]>>14) [PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI]>>15) [INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF THE DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN>NEIGHBORHOOD COUNTRIES]>>16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS]>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka >> Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > >-- > > >http://www.timdavies.org.uk >07834 856 303. >@timdavies > >Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >-------------------------- >Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ________________________________ From: Tim Davies To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 2:28 Subject: Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 02:39:49 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:39:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know In-Reply-To: References: <4F426DAB.1050309@digsys.bg> <1329802430.24495.YahooMailNeo@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1329809989.23859.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Mc Tim, followigns are references please:   Google fined for book copyright: >  >  >Google’s Piracy Liabilities: >Google so strongly opposes anti-piracy legislation in part because Google appreciates it is unique among major corporations in having a very public and extensive track record over several years that has been anti-IP enforcement. In addition to its high-profile, pushing-the-envelope of copyright infringement with both Google Booksand YouTube, in August Google signed a criminal Non-Prosecution Agreementwith the Department of Justice tosettle criminal charges that Google knowingly and repeatedly violated Federal criminal laws prohibiting the “unsafe and unlawfulimportation of prescription drugs into the U.S. for several years. Google also paid a near-record $500 million criminal forfeiture penaltyto settle these piracy charges. Given that the U.S. Attorney who led the Google criminal piracy probe indicated the evidence was clear current senior management, including Google CEO “Larry Page,knew what was going on” and did not stop the piracy, suggests that Google’s piracy liability is likely not limited to just aiding and abetting illegal prescription drug imports, but could involve many other kinds of goods and services as well.[http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2011/11/09/googles-piracy-liability/] >  >What does the settlement provide?: >Google will also pay at least $45 million to resolve existing claims of Rightsholders for Books and Inserts that Google scanned without permission as of May 5, 2009, which is the date by which class members must notify the parties if they wish to opt out of the Settlement (the "Opt-Out Deadline"). Rightsholders will be able to file claims to receive cash payments, but must do so on or before January 5, 2010. >[http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/settlement-what.html] > >A French court has found Google guilty of infringing copyright by digitising books without the approval of the publisher. >The search giant must pay €300,000 in damages to Herve de La Martiniere. Google will also have to pay a daily fine of €10,000 until it clears the books from its database, the BBC reports. [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/18/google_books_defeat/] Question is this that what are the possibilities for another " Agreement" with the DoC in near future to settle the "Piracy Infringement that Google knowingly and repeatedly violated" about the collecting and using the data & contents from their common profiels which are shared through single sign-in among all of Google Applications (gmail/facebook/myspace etc).   Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > >From: McTim >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah >Cc: Daniel Kalchev ; Louis Pouzin (well) ; Marie Georges >Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 11:16 >Subject: Re: [governance] Google Caught Tracking Safari Users: What You Need to Know > > >On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> With reference to piracy of data, Google has accepted a huge fine through >> the court orders. > >It was actually a fine negotiated with the Department of Justice, not >a court ordered fine. > >and it wasn't about piracy of data at all. > >Googlepaida near-record $500 million criminal forfeiture >> penalty. > >I'm not sure it was "criminal" in that one has to be found guilty of a >crime to be a "criminal". > > >He also was ordered to pay the cost of pirated material. Thus, in >> return, Google got the ownership of the data and contents of the Users. > >I can't parse this. > >The $500 million represents the money Google made from selling the >drug ads, plus the revenue earned by Canadian pharmacies from sales to >American customers. > >All google got out of it in the end was a black eye. > >> Google is making them pay for their material and getting ownership rights >> legally through a middle company. > >???? > >They had to stop selling ads from Canadian pharmacies. > >On the Internet, if a product is free, you are not a customer, you are >the product! > >-- >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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Feb 21 04:40:02 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:40:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com) References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20120221094002.53E4F437A@quill.bollow.ch> "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > *2) [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], [CONTROLLING / REGULATORY ISSUES]* > > * > * > > [It will be good to tease out various issues]* > * > > > > - *When is filtering acceptable?* > - How do you balance filtering content and freedom of expression? > - *What should regulators consider when creating policies?* > - Balancing of rights - Intellectual Property Rights vrs Freedom of > Expression vrs Privacy I strongly disagree with this framing, which implies that under some conditions, "filtering" is "acceptable" and asks only about the degree of filtering that would be be "acceptable" and "balanced" with freedom of expression. I don't object to debates in which the merits and dismerits of Internet governance models that include filtering can be discussed, but the opportunity must be given to also, and on an equal footing, discuss Internet governance models that do not include such filtering. It is not acceptable to when the questions are framed in such a way where already from the outset, and without any justification whatsoever, the latter class of Internet governance models is painted as extreme and outside the mainstream of the debate. 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 tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Tue Feb 21 04:44:36 2012 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:44:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Imran, The sub-themes you mention below make the case well for a separate 'Internet for Kids' theme. Can you say something more about the sub-theme "Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance" - as this sounds interesting to explore, but I'm not quite sure I understand exactly what it might cover/what angle it might take... All the best Tim On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Thanks Tim, for your comments, I agree with the sub-questions. > > However, what do you think if the we keep the main Title of "Internet for > Kids" as a seperate theme and yes, theme # 11, Child Protection will be > covered under this main theme. > > If you speak regarding the age as you mentioned "from 0 to 30+", I think > it is not necessary to mention the age, otherwise, it could be upto 80+ > Kids. > Sub-Questions may include: > - Clean Contents Development Awareness Compaign for the Kids Internet. > - Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance, (that is > beyond the Contents Filtering for Kids) > - Vote for the Provisioning of dot-Kids (gTLD with IDN translations) > - Compaign for Free Access to Kids Internet for Next Generation. > > . Russia's dot-РФ registry has announced plans to apply for the top level > domain dot-kids > . In the 107th Congress, legislation sought to create a "kids-friendly > top level domain name" that would contain only age-appropriate content. The > Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002 was signed into law on > December 4, 2002 (P.L. 107-317) and authorizes the National > Telecommunications and Information Administration > (NTIA) to require the .us > registry operator (currently NeuStar) to establish, operate, and maintain a > second level domain within the .us TLD that is restricted to material > suitable for minors. > > > Thanks > > Imran Ahmed Shah > *From:* Tim Davies > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah > *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 2:28 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG > Consultations] > > > Hello Imran, > > These are good suggestions. On your suggested (20), Internet for Kids, one > of the ways I've tried to encourage addressing this in the past is > encouraging talk of 'Children, young people, and young adults' in place of > the term 'youth' which tends to get widely used to cover a blanket group > from 0 to 30+. > > What would you think about advocating for a reshaping of theme (8) INTERNET > IMPACT ON YOUTH into something like: > > 'IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG > ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET' > > with sub-questions such as: > > - How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? > > - How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth to > contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged? > > - What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address > issues for children, young people and young adults? > > > All the best > > Tim > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > > Thanks for your invitation. > I would suggest some following topics to be included: > > 17. Maximum utilization of open/free Band Frequency spectrum i.e. "ISM > Band" > 18. Information Sharing Sensitivity Awareness. > 19. Internet for Women > 20. Internet for Kids > 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local > language. > 22. Privacy on Social Networking and Mobile Internet > Thanks > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > ------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:43 AM PKT Salanieta > T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet > Governance for Sustainable Human,>Economic and Social Development. The MAG > has various groups dealing with>the following:->> - consolidate the list > of topics under the theme> - come up with a coherent description of the > theme> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme> > (following the way it was organised in 2011)>>We would encourage anyone > interested in putting forward views on Access and>Diversity by responding > to this thread. We would like to ensure that this>opportunity for > consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try>to wrap this up > by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work>on > consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to>the > entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current > MAG>representatives to take this > forward.>>Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG > are as follows:->>>1) ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF > EXPRESSION] [HUMAN>RIGHTS ]>>2) [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], > [CONTROLLING / REGULATORY ISSUES]>>3) MULTILINGUALISM>>4) WOMEN > EMPOWERMENT>>5) LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY>>6) [PARTICIPATION AND > INCLUSION] PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES>>7) OPEN DATA AND RELATED > POLICIES>>8) INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH>>9) YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN > INTERNET GOVERNANCE>>10) HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS>>11) [HOW TO > HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK]>>12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER > ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?>>13) [FRAMEWORKS AND > PRINCIPLES]>>14) [PUBLIC KEY INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI]>>15) [INSTITUTIONAL > COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF THE DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN>NEIGHBORHOOD > COUNTRIES]>>16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR > ACCESS]>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka > Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 > 998 2851 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - > #5381958. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 21 04:56:15 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:56:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Why suggest adding a topic "kids" and "internet for women" when there's already topics on the list fpr women and youth? (Youth has always been a catch-all for young people of all young ages.) The main task ahead, read Sala's email, is "consolidate the list of topics under the theme". There's also a topic for spectrum. Adam On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Tim Davies wrote: > Hello Imran, > > The sub-themes you mention below make the case well for a separate 'Internet > for Kids' theme. > > Can you say something more about the sub-theme "Debates for Provisioning of > Kids Internet Governance" - as this sounds interesting to explore, but I'm > not quite sure I understand exactly what it might cover/what angle it might > take... > > All the best > > Tim > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >> Thanks Tim, for your comments, I agree with the sub-questions. >> >> However, what do you think if the we keep the main Title of "Internet for >> Kids" as a seperate theme and yes, theme # 11, Child Protection will be >> covered under this main theme. >> >> If you speak regarding the age as you mentioned "from 0 to 30+", I think >> it is not necessary to mention the age, otherwise, it could be upto 80+ >> Kids. >> Sub-Questions may include: >>     - Clean Contents Development Awareness Compaign for the Kids Internet. >>     - Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance, (that is >> beyond the Contents Filtering for Kids) >>     - Vote for the Provisioning of dot-Kids (gTLD with IDN translations) >>     - Compaign for Free Access to Kids Internet for Next Generation. >> >> . Russia's dot-РФ registry has announced plans to apply for the top level >> domain dot-kids >> . In the 107th Congress, legislation sought to create a "kids-friendly top >> level domain name" that would contain only age-appropriate content. The Dot >> Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002 was signed into law on >> December 4, 2002 (P.L. 107-317) and authorizes the National >> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to require the .us >> registry operator (currently NeuStar) to establish, operate, and maintain a >> second level domain within the .us TLD that is restricted to material >> suitable for minors. >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> From: Tim Davies >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah >> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 2:28 >> Subject: Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG >> Consultations] >> >> >> Hello Imran, >> >> These are good suggestions. On your suggested (20), Internet for Kids, one >> of the ways I've tried to encourage addressing this in the past is >> encouraging talk of 'Children, young people, and young adults' in place of >> the term 'youth' which tends to get widely used to cover a blanket group >> from 0 to 30+. >> >> What would you think about advocating for a reshaping of theme >> (8)  INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH into something like: >> >> 'IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG >> ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET' >> >> with sub-questions such as: >> >> - How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? >> >> - How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth to >> contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged? >> >> - What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address >> issues for children, young people and young adults? >> >> >> All the best >> >> Tim >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah >> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks for your invitation. >> I would suggest some following topics to be included: >> >> 17. Maximum utilization of open/free Band Frequency spectrum i.e. "ISM >> Band" >> 18. Information Sharing Sensitivity Awareness. >> 19. Internet for Women >> 20. Internet for Kids >> 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local >> language. >> 22. Privacy on Social Networking and Mobile Internet >> Thanks >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> ------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:43 AM PKT Salanieta >> T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet >> Governance for Sustainable Human,>Economic and Social Development. The MAG >> has various groups dealing with>the following:->>   - consolidate the list >> of topics under the theme>   - come up with a coherent description of the >> theme>   - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme> >> (following the way it was organised in 2011)>>We would encourage anyone >> interested in putting forward views on Access and>Diversity by responding to >> this thread. We would like to ensure that this>opportunity for consultation >> is actively addressed by the list. We will try>to wrap this up by the 24th >> February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work>on consolidating the same by >> the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to>the entire list for a 48 hour >> period before we ask our current MAG>representatives to take this >>  forward.>>Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are >> as follows:->>>1)    ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF >> EXPRESSION] [HUMAN>RIGHTS ]>>2)    [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], [CONTROLLING >> / REGULATORY ISSUES]>>3)    MULTILINGUALISM>>4)    WOMEN EMPOWERMENT>>5) >>  LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY>>6)     [PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION] PERSONS >> WITH DISABILITIES>>7)    OPEN DATA AND RELATED POLICIES>>8)    INTERNET >> IMPACT ON YOUTH>>9)    YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE>>10) >> HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS>>11) [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF >> NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK]>>12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC >> DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?>>13) [FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES]>>14) [PUBLIC KEY >> INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI]>>15) [INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF THE >> DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN>NEIGHBORHOOD COUNTRIES]>>16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM >> TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS]>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka >>  Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 >> 998 2851 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> http://www.timdavies.org.uk >> 07834 856 303. >> @timdavies >> >> Co-director of Practical Participation: >> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >> -------------------------- >> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - >> #5381958. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - > #5381958. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Feb 21 05:10:11 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:10:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Notion of sustainability In-Reply-To: (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com) References: Message-ID: <20120221101011.51169437A@quill.bollow.ch> "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, > Economic and Social Development. I would suggest that this raises an important and very fundamental question: What is our understanding of the notion of sustainability in the context of human, economic and social development? What publications that wrestle with this kind of question do you find worthwhile? My view is that in order for the notion of sustainability to make sense, one must analyze the world in view of a clear objective of human, economic and social development (I would propose that this objective should be something like this: "empower the humans living today as well as future generations to live in full human dignity, in the sense of practically enjoying one's human rights, together with a sense of purpose and belonging and respect for all humans and also for the non-human forms of life on planet earth") and seek a workable strategy that aims at achieving that objective and which in fact is logically convincingly suitable for achieving the objective. Then activities which fit into such a strategy and further it can be considered to be part of "sustainable development" towards this objective. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 05:12:03 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:12:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <20120221094002.53E4F437A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20120221094002.53E4F437A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > wrote: > > > *2) [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], [CONTROLLING / REGULATORY ISSUES]* > > > > * > > * > > > > [It will be good to tease out various issues]* > > * > > > > > > > > - *When is filtering acceptable?* > > - How do you balance filtering content and freedom of expression? > > - *What should regulators consider when creating policies?* > > - Balancing of rights - Intellectual Property Rights vrs Freedom of > > Expression vrs Privacy > > I strongly disagree with this framing, which implies that under some > conditions, "filtering" is "acceptable" and asks only about the degree > of filtering that would be be "acceptable" and "balanced" with freedom > of expression. > > I don't object to debates in which the merits and dismerits of > Internet governance models that include filtering can be discussed, > but the opportunity must be given to also, and on an equal footing, > discuss Internet governance models that do not include such filtering. > > It is not acceptable to when the questions are framed in such a way > where already from the outset, and without any justification whatsoever, > the latter class of Internet governance models is painted as extreme > and outside the mainstream of the debate. > > I agree with you Norbert and don't know how to frame it in a better way. I also advocate an open and free internet but at the same time, how does one filter spam etc. I agree that it should be framed a better way, how do you suggest we re-frame the wording? > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 21 05:31:01 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:31:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: (salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com) References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20120221094002.53E4F437A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120221103101.E0D8F437A@quill.bollow.ch> I wrote: > > "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > wrote: > > > - *When is filtering acceptable?* > > > - How do you balance filtering content and freedom of expression? > > > - *What should regulators consider when creating policies?* > > > - Balancing of rights - Intellectual Property Rights vrs Freedom of > > > Expression vrs Privacy > > > > I strongly disagree with this framing, which implies that under some > > conditions, "filtering" is "acceptable" and asks only about the degree > > of filtering that would be be "acceptable" and "balanced" with freedom > > of expression. Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro replied: > I agree with you Norbert and don't know how to frame it in a better way. I > also advocate an open and free internet but at the same time, how does one > filter spam etc. I agree that it should be framed a better way, how do you > suggest we re-frame the wording? How about separating issues according to the objectives, like the following: * The spam problem - Problems caused by undesired automated communications - Undesired side-effects of spam filters - Strategies for improving the situation * Harmful and illegal content - What kind of content should be declared illegal? - What is done about this? - Undesired side-effects of some of these measures - Strategies for improving the situation * Balancing the interests and human rights of producers and users of creative, digital goods of culture. - What are the most serious current imbalances und injustices? - Strategies for improving the situation ??? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 06:11:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:11:57 +1200 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <20120221103101.E0D8F437A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20120221094002.53E4F437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120221103101.E0D8F437A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I wrote: > > > "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > wrote: > > > > - *When is filtering acceptable?* > > > > - How do you balance filtering content and freedom of expression? > > > > - *What should regulators consider when creating policies?* > > > > - Balancing of rights - Intellectual Property Rights vrs Freedom > of > > > > Expression vrs Privacy > > > > > > I strongly disagree with this framing, which implies that under some > > > conditions, "filtering" is "acceptable" and asks only about the degree > > > of filtering that would be be "acceptable" and "balanced" with freedom > > > of expression. > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > replied: > > I agree with you Norbert and don't know how to frame it in a better way. > I > > also advocate an open and free internet but at the same time, how does > one > > filter spam etc. I agree that it should be framed a better way, how do > you > > suggest we re-frame the wording? > > How about separating issues according to the objectives, like the > following: > > * The spam problem > - Problems caused by undesired automated communications > - Undesired side-effects of spam filters > - Strategies for improving the situation > > * Harmful and illegal content > - What kind of content should be declared illegal? > - What is done about this? > - Undesired side-effects of some of these measures > - Strategies for improving the situation > > * Balancing the interests and human rights of producers > and users of creative, digital goods of culture. > - What are the most serious current imbalances und injustices? > - Strategies for improving the situation > Well articulated Norbert :) > > ??? > > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 21 06:17:27 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 20:17:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Day 2 of CSTD IGF WG Message-ID: Day 2 of CSTD IGF Working Group started at 10:10. The Chair wanted to start sharp on 10:00 yesterday. We are continuing on the remaining discussion on Point B, Working modalities including open consultations, MAG, and Secretariat. We almost reached the consensus of MAG selection, not establish new Trusted group or Selection committee, but preserve the current practice, three stakeholder groups make nominations, and SG will select - with emphasis on diversity etc. Additional suggestion to define MAG's Terms of Reference was also dropped. Then we discussed about the IGF Secretariat, and the argument was around "independence". Final wording agreed was, "independent of any stakeholder group's interest" - something like that. Other editorial and other points were also discussed. We finished Point B now, (at 12:15 pm), and moving to Point. C, Funding, the most contentious part. izumi -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 21 06:40:16 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:40:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] FYI WCIR References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20120221094002.53E4F437A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC84F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577229074023195322.html?mod=googlenews_wsj 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 06:45:13 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:45:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] FYI WCIR In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC84F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20120221094002.53E4F437A@quill.bollow.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC84F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: 2012/2/21 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204792404577229074023195322.html?mod=googlenews_wsj > > Tremendous implications and will make for an excellent workshop and discussion under "sustainability" me thinks... > > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 06:47:41 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:47:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1329824861.6417.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear Adam & Tim. I recommend the main title of #11 as "Internet for Kids" and Child Protection (as a sub-title) will be covered under this main theme. The age up to 80+ just wrote as a fun, but I suggest internet for the innocent minds, kids up to 10 or 12 years. I am suggesting "Kids Internet" because; their voices are still not heard on the board. I am proposing a Governance topic which provides the protection to the websites which are just related to the Kids, their learning & education, their health, nutrition and diet, their blogs and forums, shared network and libraries for their photo collections, images and creative work.Instead of using filtering the abuse sites, this theme can propose a need for such a search engine that is only build for Kids internet and enlist the Certified Sites only. That can also initiate a need of Browser + Firewall for Kids Internet. I do not suggest to mix-up Kids things along with the Youth. For instance you may not want to permit all of those contents, blogs, forums, and community networks to your kids of age 5 or 8 that are allowed to your kids of age 20, 25 or 30. So, there are different levels of the age and Internet Governance should be separate for each level. Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Adam Peake >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 14:56 >Subject: Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] > >Why suggest adding a topic "kids" and "internet for women" when >there's already topics on the list fpr women and youth?  (Youth has >always been a catch-all for young people of all young ages.)  The main >task ahead, read Sala's email, is "consolidate the list of topics >under the theme".  There's also a topic for spectrum. > >Adam > > > >On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Tim Davies > wrote: >> Hello Imran, >> >> The sub-themes you mention below make the case well for a separate 'Internet >> for Kids' theme. >> >> Can you say something more about the sub-theme "Debates for Provisioning of >> Kids Internet Governance" - as this sounds interesting to explore, but I'm >> not quite sure I understand exactly what it might cover/what angle it might >> take... >> >> All the best >> >> Tim >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Tim, for your comments, I agree with the sub-questions. >>> >>> However, what do you think if the we keep the main Title of "Internet for >>> Kids" as a seperate theme and yes, theme # 11, Child Protection will be >>> covered under this main theme. >>> >>> If you speak regarding the age as you mentioned "from 0 to 30+", I think >>> it is not necessary to mention the age, otherwise, it could be upto 80+ >>> Kids. >>> Sub-Questions may include: >>>     - Clean Contents Development Awareness Compaign for the Kids Internet. >>>     - Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance, (that is >>> beyond the Contents Filtering for Kids) >>>     - Vote for the Provisioning of dot-Kids (gTLD with IDN translations) >>>     - Compaign for Free Access to Kids Internet for Next Generation. >>> >>> . Russia's dot-РФ registry has announced plans to apply for the top level >>> domain dot-kids >>> . In the 107th Congress, legislation sought to create a "kids-friendly top >>> level domain name" that would contain only age-appropriate content. The Dot >>> Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002 was signed into law on >>> December 4, 2002 (P.L. 107-317) and authorizes the National >>> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to require the .us >>> registry operator (currently NeuStar) to establish, operate, and maintain a >>> second level domain within the .us TLD that is restricted to material >>> suitable for minors. >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> From: Tim Davies >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah >>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 2:28 >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG >>> Consultations] >>> >>> >>> Hello Imran, >>> >>> These are good suggestions. On your suggested (20), Internet for Kids, one >>> of the ways I've tried to encourage addressing this in the past is >>> encouraging talk of 'Children, young people, and young adults' in place of >>> the term 'youth' which tends to get widely used to cover a blanket group >>> from 0 to 30+. >>> >>> What would you think about advocating for a reshaping of theme >>> (8)  INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH into something like: >>> >>> 'IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG >>> ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET' >>> >>> with sub-questions such as: >>> >>> - How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? >>> >>> - How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth to >>> contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged? >>> >>> - What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address >>> issues for children, young people and young adults? >>> >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Thanks for your invitation. >>> I would suggest some following topics to be included: >>> >>> 17. Maximum utilization of open/free Band Frequency spectrum i.e. "ISM >>> Band" >>> 18. Information Sharing Sensitivity Awareness. >>> 19. Internet for Women >>> 20. Internet for Kids >>> 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local >>> language. >>> 22. Privacy on Social Networking and Mobile Internet >>> Thanks >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> >>> ------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:43 AM PKT Salanieta >>> T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet >>> Governance for Sustainable Human,>Economic and Social Development. The MAG >>> has various groups dealing with>the following:->>   - consolidate the list >>> of topics under the theme>   - come up with a coherent description of the >>> theme>   - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme> >>> (following the way it was organised in 2011)>>We would encourage anyone >>> interested in putting forward views on Access and>Diversity by responding to >>> this thread. We would like to ensure that this>opportunity for consultation >>> is actively addressed by the list. We will try>to wrap this up by the 24th >>> February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work>on consolidating the same by >>> the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to>the entire list for a 48 hour >>> period before we ask our current MAG>representatives to take this >>>  forward.>>Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are >>> as follows:->>>1)    ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF >>> EXPRESSION] [HUMAN>RIGHTS ]>>2)    [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], [CONTROLLING >>> / REGULATORY ISSUES]>>3)    MULTILINGUALISM>>4)    WOMEN EMPOWERMENT>>5) >>>  LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY>>6)     [PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION] PERSONS >>> WITH DISABILITIES>>7)    OPEN DATA AND RELATED POLICIES>>8)    INTERNET >>> IMPACT ON YOUTH>>9)    YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE>>10) >>> HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS>>11) [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF >>> NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK]>>12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC >>> DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?>>13) [FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES]>>14) [PUBLIC KEY >>> INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI]>>15) [INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF THE >>> DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN>NEIGHBORHOOD COUNTRIES]>>16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM >>> TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS]>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka >>>  Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 >>> 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> http://www.timdavies.org.uk >>> 07834 856 303. >>> @timdavies >>> >>> Co-director of Practical Participation: >>> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >>> -------------------------- >>> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - >>> #5381958. >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> http://www.timdavies.org.uk >> 07834 856 303. >> @timdavies >> >> Co-director of Practical Participation: >> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >> -------------------------- >> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - >> #5381958. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 21 06:49:16 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:49:16 +1200 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <1329824861.6417.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329824861.6417.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Adam & Tim. > I recommend the main title of #11 as "Internet for Kids" and Child > Protection (as a sub-title) will be covered under this main theme. The age > up to 80+ just wrote as a fun, but I suggest internet for the innocent > minds, kids up to 10 or 12 years. > > I am suggesting "Kids Internet" because; their voices are still not heard > on the board. ****** > I am proposing a Governance topic which provides the protection to the > websites which are just related to the Kids, their learning & education, > their health, nutrition and diet, their blogs and forums, shared network > and libraries for their photo collections, images and creative work.Instead of using filtering the abuse sites, this theme can propose a need > for such a search engine that is only build for Kids internet and enlist > the Certified Sites only. That can also initiate a need of Browser + > Firewall for Kids Internet.**** > I do not suggest to mix-up Kids things along with the Youth. For instance > you may not want to permit all of those contents, blogs, forums, and > community networks to your kids of age 5 or 8 that are allowed to your kids > of age 20, 25 or 30. So, there are different levels of the age and Internet > Governance should be separate for each level.**** > Thanks > +1 I love this concept..."Kids search engine" > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > *From:* Adam Peake > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Sent:* Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 14:56 > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG > Consultations] > > Why suggest adding a topic "kids" and "internet for women" when > there's already topics on the list fpr women and youth? (Youth has > always been a catch-all for young people of all young ages.) The main > task ahead, read Sala's email, is "consolidate the list of topics > under the theme". There's also a topic for spectrum. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Tim Davies > wrote: > > Hello Imran, > > > > The sub-themes you mention below make the case well for a separate > 'Internet > > for Kids' theme. > > > > Can you say something more about the sub-theme "Debates for Provisioning > of > > Kids Internet Governance" - as this sounds interesting to explore, but > I'm > > not quite sure I understand exactly what it might cover/what angle it > might > > take... > > > > All the best > > > > Tim > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Tim, for your comments, I agree with the sub-questions. > >> > >> However, what do you think if the we keep the main Title of "Internet > for > >> Kids" as a seperate theme and yes, theme # 11, Child Protection will be > >> covered under this main theme. > >> > >> If you speak regarding the age as you mentioned "from 0 to 30+", I think > >> it is not necessary to mention the age, otherwise, it could be upto 80+ > >> Kids. > >> Sub-Questions may include: > >> - Clean Contents Development Awareness Compaign for the Kids > Internet. > >> - Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance, (that is > >> beyond the Contents Filtering for Kids) > >> - Vote for the Provisioning of dot-Kids (gTLD with IDN translations) > >> - Compaign for Free Access to Kids Internet for Next Generation. > >> > >> . Russia's dot-РФ registry has announced plans to apply for the top > level > >> domain dot-kids > >> . In the 107th Congress, legislation sought to create a "kids-friendly > top > >> level domain name" that would contain only age-appropriate content. The > Dot > >> Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002 was signed into law on > >> December 4, 2002 (P.L. 107-317) and authorizes the National > >> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to require the > .us > >> registry operator (currently NeuStar) to establish, operate, and > maintain a > >> second level domain within the .us TLD that is restricted to material > >> suitable for minors. > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Imran Ahmed Shah > >> From: Tim Davies > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah > >> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 2:28 > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG > >> Consultations] > >> > >> > >> Hello Imran, > >> > >> These are good suggestions. On your suggested (20), Internet for Kids, > one > >> of the ways I've tried to encourage addressing this in the past is > >> encouraging talk of 'Children, young people, and young adults' in place > of > >> the term 'youth' which tends to get widely used to cover a blanket group > >> from 0 to 30+. > >> > >> What would you think about advocating for a reshaping of theme > >> (8) INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH into something like: > >> > >> 'IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG > >> ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET' > >> > >> with sub-questions such as: > >> > >> - How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? > >> > >> - How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth > to > >> contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged? > >> > >> - What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address > >> issues for children, young people and young adults? > >> > >> > >> All the best > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Thanks for your invitation. > >> I would suggest some following topics to be included: > >> > >> 17. Maximum utilization of open/free Band Frequency spectrum i.e. "ISM > >> Band" > >> 18. Information Sharing Sensitivity Awareness. > >> 19. Internet for Women > >> 20. Internet for Kids > >> 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local > >> language. > >> 22. Privacy on Social Networking and Mobile Internet > >> Thanks > >> > >> Imran Ahmed Shah > >> > >> ------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:43 AM PKT Salanieta > >> T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet > >> Governance for Sustainable Human,>Economic and Social Development. The > MAG > >> has various groups dealing with>the following:->> - consolidate the > list > >> of topics under the theme> - come up with a coherent description of > the > >> theme> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme> > >> (following the way it was organised in 2011)>>We would encourage anyone > >> interested in putting forward views on Access and>Diversity by > responding to > >> this thread. We would like to ensure that this>opportunity for > consultation > >> is actively addressed by the list. We will try>to wrap this up by the > 24th > >> February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work>on consolidating the > same by > >> the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to>the entire list for a 48 > hour > >> period before we ask our current MAG>representatives to take this > >> forward.>>Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG > are > >> as follows:->>>1) ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF > >> EXPRESSION] [HUMAN>RIGHTS ]>>2) [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], > [CONTROLLING > >> / REGULATORY ISSUES]>>3) MULTILINGUALISM>>4) WOMEN EMPOWERMENT>>5) > >> LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY>>6) [PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION] > PERSONS > >> WITH DISABILITIES>>7) OPEN DATA AND RELATED POLICIES>>8) INTERNET > >> IMPACT ON YOUTH>>9) YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE>>10) > >> HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS>>11) [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF > >> NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK]>>12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC > >> DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?>>13) [FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES]>>14) [PUBLIC > KEY > >> INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI]>>15) [INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF > THE > >> DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN>NEIGHBORHOOD COUNTRIES]>>16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM > >> TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS]>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > aka > >> Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 > >> 998 2851 > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> http://www.timdavies.org.uk > >> 07834 856 303. > >> @timdavies > >> > >> Co-director of Practical Participation: > >> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > >> -------------------------- > >> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and > Wales - > >> #5381958. > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > > 07834 856 303. > > @timdavies > > > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > > -------------------------- > > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales > - > > #5381958. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 21 06:51:07 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:51:07 +1200 Subject: [governance] Day 2 of CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, You can also follow the live tweets #CSTDWG. Some of our members are tweeting. Warm Regards, Sala On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Day 2 of CSTD IGF Working Group started at 10:10. The Chair wanted to > start sharp on > 10:00 yesterday. > > We are continuing on the remaining discussion on Point B, Working > modalities including open consultations, MAG, and Secretariat. > > We almost reached the consensus of MAG selection, not establish new > Trusted group or Selection committee, but preserve the current > practice, three stakeholder groups make nominations, and SG will > select - with emphasis on diversity etc. > > Additional suggestion to define MAG's Terms of Reference was also dropped. > > Then we discussed about the IGF Secretariat, and the argument was > around "independence". > Final wording agreed was, "independent of any stakeholder group's > interest" - something like that. > Other editorial and other points were also discussed. > > We finished Point B now, (at 12:15 pm), and moving to Point. C, > Funding, the most contentious > part. > > izumi > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 07:02:31 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:02:31 -0200 Subject: [governance] Day 2 of CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the topic of funding I mentioned remote participation. My suggestion was that: "There should be stable and predictable funding to cover remote participation management and technical expenses in order to avoid relying solely on voluntary work. The Secretariat and the host country should work together to ensure the availability of adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderator". Stable and apropriate funding need to be available for RP to work. Part of the reason why quality of remote participation is variable from year to year is that funding is also unreliable and variable. Remote participation has become so important it should not depend of the availability of volunteers. Difficult to get through with the topic though. Marília On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > You can also follow the live tweets #CSTDWG. Some of our members are > tweeting. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Day 2 of CSTD IGF Working Group started at 10:10. The Chair wanted to >> start sharp on >> 10:00 yesterday. >> >> We are continuing on the remaining discussion on Point B, Working >> modalities including open consultations, MAG, and Secretariat. >> >> We almost reached the consensus of MAG selection, not establish new >> Trusted group or Selection committee, but preserve the current >> practice, three stakeholder groups make nominations, and SG will >> select - with emphasis on diversity etc. >> >> Additional suggestion to define MAG's Terms of Reference was also >> dropped. >> >> Then we discussed about the IGF Secretariat, and the argument was >> around "independence". >> Final wording agreed was, "independent of any stakeholder group's >> interest" - something like that. >> Other editorial and other points were also discussed. >> >> We finished Point B now, (at 12:15 pm), and moving to Point. C, >> Funding, the most contentious >> part. >> >> izumi >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 07:22:13 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:22:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329824861.6417.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1329826933.13186.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thanks Sala for your comments, This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were discussing that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing, configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or using the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we devise some governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser to Kids Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the confidence of Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids.   Thanks   Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah >Cc: Adam Peake >Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 16:49 >Subject: Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] > > > > > >On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >Dear Adam & Tim. >>I recommend the main title of #11 as "Internet for Kids" and Child Protection (as a sub-title) will be covered under this main theme. The age up to 80+ just wrote as a fun, but I suggest internet for the innocent minds, kids up to 10 or 12 years. >> >>I am suggesting "Kids Internet" because; their voices are still not heard on the board. >>I am proposing a Governance topic which provides the protection to the websites which are just related to the Kids, their learning & education, their health, nutrition and diet, their blogs and forums, shared network and libraries for their photo collections, images and creative work.Instead of using filtering the abuse sites, this theme can propose a need for such a search engine that is only build for Kids internet and enlist the Certified Sites only. That can also initiate a need of Browser + Firewall for Kids Internet. >>I do not suggest to mix-up Kids things along with the Youth. For instance you may not want to permit all of those contents, blogs, forums, and community networks to your kids of age 5 or 8 that are allowed to your kids of age 20, 25 or 30. So, there are different levels of the age and Internet Governance should be separate for each level. >>Thanks > >+1 I love this concept..."Kids search engine" > >  >>Imran Ahmed Shah >> From: Adam Peake >>>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 14:56 >>> >>>Subject: Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] >>> >>> >>>Why suggest adding a topic "kids" and "internet for women" when >>>there's already topics on the list fpr women and youth?  (Youth has >>>always been a catch-all for young people of all young ages.)  The main >>>task ahead, read Sala's email, is "consolidate the list of topics >>>under the theme".  There's also a topic for spectrum. >>> >>>Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Tim Davies >>> wrote: >>>> Hello Imran, >>>> >>>> The sub-themes you mention below make the case well for a separate 'Internet >>>> for Kids' theme. >>>> >>>> Can you say something more about the sub-theme "Debates for Provisioning of >>>> Kids Internet Governance" - as this sounds interesting to explore, but I'm >>>> not quite sure I understand exactly what it might cover/what angle it might >>>> take... >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Tim, for your comments, I agree with the sub-questions. >>>>> >>>>> However, what do you think if the we keep the main Title of "Internet for >>>>> Kids" as a seperate theme and yes, theme # 11, Child Protection will be >>>>> covered under this main theme. >>>>> >>>>> If you speak regarding the age as you mentioned "from 0 to 30+", I think >>>>> it is not necessary to mention the age, otherwise, it could be upto 80+ >>>>> Kids. >>>>> Sub-Questions may include: >>>>>     - Clean Contents Development Awareness Compaign for the Kids Internet. >>>>>     - Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance, (that is >>>>> beyond the Contents Filtering for Kids) >>>>>     - Vote for the Provisioning of dot-Kids (gTLD with IDN translations) >>>>>     - Compaign for Free Access to Kids Internet for Next Generation. >>>>> >>>>> . Russia's dot-РФ registry has announced plans to apply for the top level >>>>> domain dot-kids >>>>> . In the 107th Congress, legislation sought to create a "kids-friendly top >>>>> level domain name" that would contain only age-appropriate content. The Dot >>>>> Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002 was signed into law on >>>>> December 4, 2002 (P.L. 107-317) and authorizes the National >>>>> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to require the .us >>>>> registry operator (currently NeuStar) to establish, operate, and maintain a >>>>> second level domain within the .us TLD that is restricted to material >>>>> suitable for minors. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> From: Tim Davies >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 2:28 >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG >>>>> Consultations] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello Imran, >>>>> >>>>> These are good suggestions. On your suggested (20), Internet for Kids, one >>>>> of the ways I've tried to encourage addressing this in the past is >>>>> encouraging talk of 'Children, young people, and young adults' in place of >>>>> the term 'youth' which tends to get widely used to cover a blanket group >>>>> from 0 to 30+. >>>>> >>>>> What would you think about advocating for a reshaping of theme >>>>> (8)  INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH into something like: >>>>> >>>>> 'IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG >>>>> ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET' >>>>> >>>>> with sub-questions such as: >>>>> >>>>> - How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? >>>>> >>>>> - How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth to >>>>> contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged? >>>>> >>>>> - What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address >>>>> issues for children, young people and young adults? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All the best >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your invitation. >>>>> I would suggest some following topics to be included: >>>>> >>>>> 17. Maximum utilization of open/free Band Frequency spectrum i.e. "ISM >>>>> Band" >>>>> 18. Information Sharing Sensitivity Awareness. >>>>> 19. Internet for Women >>>>> 20. Internet for Kids >>>>> 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local >>>>> language. >>>>> 22. Privacy on Social Networking and Mobile Internet >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:43 AM PKT Salanieta >>>>> T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet >>>>> Governance for Sustainable Human,>Economic and Social Development. The MAG >>>>> has various groups dealing with>the following:->>   - consolidate the list >>>>> of topics under the theme>   - come up with a coherent description of the >>>>> theme>   - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme> >>>>> (following the way it was organised in 2011)>>We would encourage anyone >>>>> interested in putting forward views on Access and>Diversity by responding to >>>>> this thread. We would like to ensure that this>opportunity for consultation >>>>> is actively addressed by the list. We will try>to wrap this up by the 24th >>>>> February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work>on consolidating the same by >>>>> the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to>the entire list for a 48 hour >>>>> period before we ask our current MAG>representatives to take this >>>>>  forward.>>Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are >>>>> as follows:->>>1)    ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF >>>>> EXPRESSION] [HUMAN>RIGHTS ]>>2)    [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], [CONTROLLING >>>>> / REGULATORY ISSUES]>>3)    MULTILINGUALISM>>4)    WOMEN EMPOWERMENT>>5) >>>>>  LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY>>6)     [PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION] PERSONS >>>>> WITH DISABILITIES>>7)    OPEN DATA AND RELATED POLICIES>>8)    INTERNET >>>>> IMPACT ON YOUTH>>9)    YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE>>10) >>>>> HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS>>11) [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF >>>>> NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK]>>12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC >>>>> DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?>>13) [FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES]>>14) [PUBLIC KEY >>>>> INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI]>>15) [INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF THE >>>>> DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN>NEIGHBORHOOD COUNTRIES]>>16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM >>>>> TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS]>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka >>>>>  Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 >>>>> 998 2851 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.timdavies.org.uk >>>>> 07834 856 303. >>>>> @timdavies >>>>> >>>>> Co-director of Practical Participation: >>>>> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >>>>> -------------------------- >>>>> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - >>>>> #5381958. >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.timdavies.org.uk >>>> 07834 856 303. >>>> @timdavies >>>> >>>> Co-director of Practical Participation: >>>> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >>>> -------------------------- >>>> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - >>>> #5381958. >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >Tweeter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Cell: +679 998 2851 >  > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 07:30:58 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:30:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Day 2 of CSTD IGF WG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1329827458.18582.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> That is excellent Marilia, we will be happy to see the practicle implementation of such support. Last year, IGF2011, here three Remote Hubs were arranged at Universties. http://igfpak.org/?page_id=37   Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah   >________________________________ > From: Marilia Maciel >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >Cc: Izumi AIZU >Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 17:02 >Subject: Re: [governance] Day 2 of CSTD IGF WG > > >On the topic of funding I mentioned remote participation. My suggestion was that: > > >"There should be stable and predictable funding to cover remote participation management and technical expenses in order to avoid relying solely on voluntary work. The Secretariat and the host country should work together to ensure the availability of adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderator".  Stable and apropriate funding need to be available for RP to work. Part of the reason why quality of remote participation is variable from year to year is that funding is also unreliable and variable. Remote participation has become so important it should not depend of the availability of volunteers. > > >Difficult to get through with the topic though. > > >Marília > >On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >Dear All, >> >>You can also follow the live tweets #CSTDWG. Some of our members are tweeting. >> >>Warm Regards, >>Sala >> >> >>On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>Day 2 of CSTD IGF Working Group started at 10:10. The Chair wanted to >>>start sharp on >>>10:00 yesterday. >>> >>>We are continuing on the remaining discussion on Point B, Working >>>modalities including open consultations, MAG, and Secretariat. >>> >>>We almost reached the consensus of MAG selection, not establish new >>>Trusted group or Selection committee, but preserve the current >>>practice, three stakeholder groups make nominations, and SG will >>>select - with emphasis on diversity etc. >>> >>>Additional suggestion to define MAG's  Terms of Reference was also dropped. >>> >>>Then we discussed about the IGF Secretariat, and the argument was >>>around "independence". >>>Final wording agreed was, "independent of any stakeholder group's >>>interest" - something like that. >>>Other editorial and other points were also discussed. >>> >>>We finished Point B now, (at 12:15 pm), and moving to Point. C, >>>Funding, the most contentious >>>part. >>> >>>izumi >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >> >>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> >>Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>Cell: +679 998 2851 >>  >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To 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 iza at anr.org Tue Feb 21 09:13:21 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:13:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] 12 key inter-governmental meetings of 2012 Message-ID: These are worth noted for all of us: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/02/09/12-intergovernmental-meetings-of-2012 izumi -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 21 10:02:13 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:02:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] 12 key inter-governmental meetings of 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Izumi, Thanks. Note - the May IGF open consultation and open MAG meeting is missing from the list. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-21, at 9:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > These are worth noted for all of us: > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/02/09/12-intergovernmental-meetings-of-2012 > > izumi > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 21 10:03:14 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:03:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups In-Reply-To: References: <4F428BBF.2070503@eff.org> Message-ID: Sorry I missed ccing the igc list in previous mail. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Pouzin (well) Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Hi Sala, I'd be interested in a sub-theme within managing critical internet resources: *Multiple name spaces in internet* - diversity of language scripts - regional spaces - brand names management - diversisty of jurisdictions - directory structures - name collisions - scopes - inter-operability - (more) Worth a workshop with a half dozen stakeholders. Cheers - - - On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 20:03, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Fouad and Katitza. > > I would suggest that various people from the IGC volunteer to steer > discussions within IGC on the following: > > 1. Internet Governance for Development > 2. Emerging Issues > 3. Managing Critical Internet Resources > 4. Security, Openness and Privacy > 5. Access and Diversity > 6. Taking Stock and the Way Forward > > One option is to initiate 6 separate threads within the Governance mailing > list which are subject specific. People can find their respective flows and > take the initiative to raise certain issues. > > It will also be good to draw from issues raised in the past IGFs which > have yet to be resolved. The appropriate findings from the work of the > Dynamic Coalition on Mapping Internet Governance should be considered by > the various sub groups. People have the liberty to raise issues that they > feel should be covered and canvassed. It will also be good to consolidate > all the views and hear minority views and feed this into a central > document. > > Current MAG members can then raise these issues for us as a list after > consensus is reached on the various themes. > > *Suggested Time Frame* > > 20th February, 2012 - initiate consultation with IGC and invite feedback > and consultations > > 24th February, 2012 - consolidate positions and perspectives and put to > the list for 48 hour period of consensus > 26th February, 2012 - finalise and put the list for final comments > 27th February, 2012 - send to current MAG members to take our positions to > the MAG Groups > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 21 10:16:33 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:16:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] 12 key inter-governmental meetings of 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Robert, IF I am not mistaken, the next IGF Open consultation and MAG meeting will be in parallel with WSIS Forum which is May 14 - 18. izumi 2012/2/22 Robert Guerra : > Izumi, > > Thanks. > > Note -  the May IGF open consultation and open MAG meeting is missing from > the list. > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-21, at 9:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > These are worth noted for all of us: > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/02/09/12-intergovernmental-meetings-of-2012 > > izumi > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 10:30:49 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:30:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <1329826933.13186.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329824861.6417.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329826933.13186.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Thanks Sala for your comments, > This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were discussing > that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing, > configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or using > the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we devise some > governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser to Kids > Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the confidence of > Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids. Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate). -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 21 11:42:02 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:42:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Message-ID: <1329842522.93743.yint-ygo-j2me@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I do not think so, it is not filtering. Kids have right to walk on the Main Highway (of Internet) but they could not drive vehicle which are allowed on the Highway. So, their TriCycle of Battery Operated Small Car would be suitable to easy slow drive lane (or Service Side Road) for Kids. Thanks Imran ------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 8:30 PM PKT McTim wrote:>On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>> Thanks Sala for your comments,>> This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were discussing>> that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing,>> configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or using>> the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we devise some>> governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser to Kids>> Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the confidence of>> Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids.>>>Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to>Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate).>>-- >Cheers,>>McTim>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A>route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 11:44:18 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:44:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329824861.6417.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329826933.13186.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: There's a very interesting book - "Tell me! the right of the child to information" by Marian Koren, published by NBLC, 1996 (ISBN 90 5483 1 18 9). Met the author at the Association of Caribbean University Research and Institutional Libraries (ACURIL) conference in Aruba in 2005. It's an interesting perspective and one that I think should certainly be included in the discussion Deirdre On 21 February 2012 11:30, McTim wrote: > On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Thanks Sala for your comments, > > This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were > discussing > > that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing, > > configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or using > > the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we devise > some > > governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser to Kids > > Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the confidence of > > Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids. > > > Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to > Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate). > > -- > 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 > > -- “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 iza at anr.org Tue Feb 21 11:57:01 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:57:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Day 2 of CSTD IGF WG #2 Message-ID: In the afternoon, we moved to discuss on Point C, Funding of the IGF. There were lengthy discussions around new Chapeau text, and since we could not reach the consensus easily, we hold that for the time, and moved into specific recommendation items. Then we went to the discussion how to mobilize additional contributions. izumi -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 12:14:52 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:14:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: While taking Adam's point about consolidation, I also remember someone (sorry can't remember who) complaining about how, IN PART, the IGF ends up being the same old discussion on the same old topics year after year. Particularly considering the de facto importance of human rights this year is it possible to change the framing to offer some different perspectives? For example: 1. Apart from the strictly technical discussions (and even there sometimes) the focus is on the human. So how do we extend the technology network to embrace other groups working towards the same goals but not using, or at least not emphasising, the technology? I propose that ideally there should be policy harmony among all of the groups working towards the same objectives. Do the people who use the Internet as a means have any suggestions? 2. I am concerned about 'the youth' because they're a moving target. To create a universal definition for 'a child' is a major obstacle in harmonising policy and legislation. How much more so 'a youth'? When do they become adults? What happens to them when they do? Do they recognise the change themselves? Is the fact that 'youth' is a shared experience of all of us something that can be reconfigured to provide a benefit for the 'new youth' as they come along? 3. Can we please also include the elderly? The Internet offers them benefits and problems as well. Imran joked about the 80+ and the need to consider 'internet innocents'. I agree with him. They should be included. They are a very large but rather marginalised stakeholder group. Deirdre On 21 February 2012 05:56, Adam Peake wrote: > Why suggest adding a topic "kids" and "internet for women" when > there's already topics on the list fpr women and youth? (Youth has > always been a catch-all for young people of all young ages.) The main > task ahead, read Sala's email, is "consolidate the list of topics > under the theme". There's also a topic for spectrum. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Tim Davies > wrote: > > Hello Imran, > > > > The sub-themes you mention below make the case well for a separate > 'Internet > > for Kids' theme. > > > > Can you say something more about the sub-theme "Debates for Provisioning > of > > Kids Internet Governance" - as this sounds interesting to explore, but > I'm > > not quite sure I understand exactly what it might cover/what angle it > might > > take... > > > > All the best > > > > Tim > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Tim, for your comments, I agree with the sub-questions. > >> > >> However, what do you think if the we keep the main Title of "Internet > for > >> Kids" as a seperate theme and yes, theme # 11, Child Protection will be > >> covered under this main theme. > >> > >> If you speak regarding the age as you mentioned "from 0 to 30+", I think > >> it is not necessary to mention the age, otherwise, it could be upto 80+ > >> Kids. > >> Sub-Questions may include: > >> - Clean Contents Development Awareness Compaign for the Kids > Internet. > >> - Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance, (that is > >> beyond the Contents Filtering for Kids) > >> - Vote for the Provisioning of dot-Kids (gTLD with IDN translations) > >> - Compaign for Free Access to Kids Internet for Next Generation. > >> > >> . Russia's dot-РФ registry has announced plans to apply for the top > level > >> domain dot-kids > >> . In the 107th Congress, legislation sought to create a "kids-friendly > top > >> level domain name" that would contain only age-appropriate content. The > Dot > >> Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act of 2002 was signed into law on > >> December 4, 2002 (P.L. 107-317) and authorizes the National > >> Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to require the > .us > >> registry operator (currently NeuStar) to establish, operate, and > maintain a > >> second level domain within the .us TLD that is restricted to material > >> suitable for minors. > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Imran Ahmed Shah > >> From: Tim Davies > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Imran Ahmed Shah > >> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, 2:28 > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG > >> Consultations] > >> > >> > >> Hello Imran, > >> > >> These are good suggestions. On your suggested (20), Internet for Kids, > one > >> of the ways I've tried to encourage addressing this in the past is > >> encouraging talk of 'Children, young people, and young adults' in place > of > >> the term 'youth' which tends to get widely used to cover a blanket group > >> from 0 to 30+. > >> > >> What would you think about advocating for a reshaping of theme > >> (8) INTERNET IMPACT ON YOUTH into something like: > >> > >> 'IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG > >> ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET' > >> > >> with sub-questions such as: > >> > >> - How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? > >> > >> - How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth > to > >> contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged? > >> > >> - What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address > >> issues for children, young people and young adults? > >> > >> > >> All the best > >> > >> Tim > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Thanks for your invitation. > >> I would suggest some following topics to be included: > >> > >> 17. Maximum utilization of open/free Band Frequency spectrum i.e. "ISM > >> Band" > >> 18. Information Sharing Sensitivity Awareness. > >> 19. Internet for Women > >> 20. Internet for Kids > >> 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local > >> language. > >> 22. Privacy on Social Networking and Mobile Internet > >> Thanks > >> > >> Imran Ahmed Shah > >> > >> ------------------------------On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 1:43 AM PKT Salanieta > >> T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Dear All,>>The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet > >> Governance for Sustainable Human,>Economic and Social Development. The > MAG > >> has various groups dealing with>the following:->> - consolidate the > list > >> of topics under the theme> - come up with a coherent description of > the > >> theme> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme> > >> (following the way it was organised in 2011)>>We would encourage anyone > >> interested in putting forward views on Access and>Diversity by > responding to > >> this thread. We would like to ensure that this>opportunity for > consultation > >> is actively addressed by the list. We will try>to wrap this up by the > 24th > >> February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work>on consolidating the > same by > >> the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to>the entire list for a 48 > hour > >> period before we ask our current MAG>representatives to take this > >> forward.>>Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG > are > >> as follows:->>>1) ACCESS TO FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND [FREEDOM OF > >> EXPRESSION] [HUMAN>RIGHTS ]>>2) [HUMAN RIGHTS], [FILTERING], > [CONTROLLING > >> / REGULATORY ISSUES]>>3) MULTILINGUALISM>>4) WOMEN EMPOWERMENT>>5) > >> LEGAL POLICY AND REGULATORY>>6) [PARTICIPATION AND INCLUSION] > PERSONS > >> WITH DISABILITIES>>7) OPEN DATA AND RELATED POLICIES>>8) INTERNET > >> IMPACT ON YOUTH>>9) YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE>>10) > >> HYPERCONECTIVITY AND INDIVIDUALS>>11) [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF > >> NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK]>>12) HOW CAN WE DELIVER ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC > >> DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES?>>13) [FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES]>>14) [PUBLIC > KEY > >> INFRASTRUCTURE – PKI]>>15) [INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATION ON ELIMINATION OF > THE > >> DIGITAL GAP BETWEEN>NEIGHBORHOOD COUNTRIES]>>16) [INNOVATION IN SPECTRUM > >> TECHNOLOGY – IMPLICATIONS FOR ACCESS]>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > aka > >> Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 > >> 998 2851 > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> http://www.timdavies.org.uk > >> 07834 856 303. > >> @timdavies > >> > >> Co-director of Practical Participation: > >> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > >> -------------------------- > >> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and > Wales - > >> #5381958. > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > > 07834 856 303. > > @timdavies > > > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > > -------------------------- > > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales > - > > #5381958. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 12:48:27 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 05:48:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Pouzin (well) Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Hi Sala, I'd be interested in a sub-theme within managing critical internet resources: *Multiple name spaces in internet* - diversity of language scripts - regional spaces - brand names management - diversisty of jurisdictions - directory structures - name collisions - scopes - inter-operability - (more) Worth a workshop with a half dozen stakeholders. I agree with Louis' suggestion. I hav Cheers On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Sala, > > My 2 cents: I see 3 topics here not 5: > > 1) IXPs & MIGRATION OF RESOURCES >> > > - Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared Lessons] > - > - Getting various stakeholders within developing countries > particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater > cohesion in the area of policy; > - It will be good to see various regulatory practices around the > world etc > > > 2) [SMART GRIDS] & INTERNET OF THINGS > - > > Personally I call this category - wireless grids. fyi we are on track > towards releasing version 0.1 open specs March 26 @ TEDxHarlem. Anyway, > smart grids, generally speaking, aren't that smart; and the 'things' in > isolation are just - things. So real issue is how does one share resources > among grids and things; and not pretend all life will be in the cloud so > who needs to worry our pretty little heads about who controls what - > resources, including things. > > In sum, imho these 2 together are more interesting and relevant for IGF > than either alone, which odds are would turn into corporate sales pitches > for particular big brands...in the usual suspect category > > > 3) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF >> PUBLIC INTEREST >> >> >> (Sounds good to me; though I wonder what our ITU friends will think of >> IGF engaging on spectrum allocation ; ) >> > > > >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 14:39:02 2012 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:39:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329824861.6417.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329826933.13186.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2012/2/21 McTim > On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Thanks Sala for your comments, > > This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were > discussing > > that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing, > > configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or using > > the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we devise > some > > governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser to Kids > > Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the confidence of > > Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids. > > > Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to > Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate). > And what about their privacy? Do children have no Right to Privacy? >From what age do children acquire the right to privacy? Fatima > > -- > 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 > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Directora de Investigaciones *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ *@facambronero* *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 21 14:46:05 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:46:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as possible to include your comments into the Statement on the Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue on how we can actively contribute in this area. If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied the text below. Warm Regards, Sala URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote participation. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live transcript. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not just the Main Sessions. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one function. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work together to bring them about: - Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. - Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from offline participants. - Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. - Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. - Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). - Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. - Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote participants to interact and engage in meetings. - Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting - Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive presentations access through RP. - Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote participation processes. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these countries could access the IGF. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested methodology. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also include the following:- · Outreach; · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in a series of strategic roll out; · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can be better involved in the remote hubs etc We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles . On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-**4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org<46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org>>, > at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > writes > > What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - well, hopefully >> we'll find out soon from the Secretariat and/or Google >> > > Do they have a product which competes with the current market leaders from > Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something which works, of course - > historically their tools have been allegedly very fussy about exactly what > version of 'flash' or whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing > is half the battle. > -- > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 16:10:18 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:10:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Dear Sala and everyone, I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth paragraph to follow the second - see below. Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva De 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote participation. 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not just the Main Sessions. 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live transcript. 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one function. 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work together to bring them about: · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from offline participants. · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. · Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote participants to interact and engage in meetings. · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive presentations access through RP. · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote participation processes. 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation. 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these countries could access the IGF. 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested methodology. 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also include the following:- · Outreach; · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in a series of strategic roll out; · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can be better involved in the remote hubs etc 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles . On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, more > than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the list for > feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as possible to include > your comments into the Statement on the Workspace. Thank you Izumi for > initiating the process and De for consolidating the text and numerous > others who have contributed. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC > statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi and > Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue on how we > can actively contribute in this area. > > If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you could > engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied the text below. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial part of > organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate the effort > to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, the > Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting this > month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral part of > Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to sustain > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote participation. > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society > Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with > the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, > (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to ensure > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not just > the Main Sessions. > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one > function. > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work > together to bring them about: > > - Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an equal > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > - Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth > to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > - Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, > facilitators and chairs. > > > - Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage through > RP that will be available. > > > - Always assigning exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and > are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical > participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). > > > - Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > - Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > - Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well > as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting > > > - Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP. > > > - Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to ensure > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to ensure > improved remote participation processes. > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from > all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who > wish to do so from a remote location. > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes > to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > countries could access the IGF. > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture where > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested methodology. > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to sustain > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also > include the following:- > > · Outreach; > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in a > series of strategic roll out; > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can be > better involved in the remote hubs etc > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines and > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants > prepared a draft of e-participation principles > . > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-**4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org<46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org>>, >> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra >> writes >> >> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - well, >>> hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat and/or Google >>> >> >> Do they have a product which competes with the current market leaders >> from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something which works, of >> course - historically their tools have been allegedly very fussy about >> exactly what version of 'flash' or whatever you have installed, and that >> sort of thing is half the battle. >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Feb 22 02:47:23 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:47:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> Hi all Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a central role. This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: > Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > hosts, facilitators and chairs. We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them to participate. Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance for the additional expense involved. Anriette On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Sala and everyone, > > I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth > paragraph to follow the second - see below. > > Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote > participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind > I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a > separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph > 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to > the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) > > Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva > De > > 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate > the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, > the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting > this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. > > 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral > part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible > to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > participation. > > 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all > sessions and not just the Main Sessions. > > 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live > transcript. > > 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > than one function. > > 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and > work together to bring them about: > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an > equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth > to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance > to enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage > through RP that will be available. > > · Always assigning exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and > are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical > participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well > as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP. > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society > that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to > ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted > to ensure improved remote participation processes. > > 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, > and who wish to do so from a remote location. > > 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > private sector in enhancing remote participation. > > 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > reality. > > 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > countries could access the IGF. > > 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture > where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > methodology. > > 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to > sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > also include the following:- > > · Outreach; > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in > a series of strategic roll out; > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can > be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > . > > > > > > On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, > more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the > list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as > possible to include your comments into the Statement on the > Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for > consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC > statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi > and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue > on how we can actively contribute in this area. > > If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you > could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied > the text below. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, > and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > observers. > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral > part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without > effective remote participation. > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team > from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred > with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to > live transcript. > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to > ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > and not just the Main Sessions. > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving > more than one function. > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, > and work together to bring them about: > > * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > participants through planning meetings to give online and > offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and > contribute to meetings. > > * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with > hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from > offline participants. > > * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > participation and its moderation and post session or meeting > reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the > opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. > > * Always assigning exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same > time, and are responsible for interactions between the > meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and > the remote participants). > > * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for > those physically present in Geneva and those observing the > meeting remotely. > > * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as > well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of > coverage of the meeting > > * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > interactive presentations access through RP. > > * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical > elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote > participation processes. > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > private sector in enhancing remote participation. > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote > participation a reality. > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries > and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > these countries could access the IGF. > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture > where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > methodology. > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain > a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should > also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > also include the following:- > > · Outreach; > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > IGF in a series of strategic roll out; > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > . > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org > >, > at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > > writes > > What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - > well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat > and/or Google > > > Do they have a product which competes with the current market > leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something > which works, of course - historically their tools have been > allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or > whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the > battle. > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 22 06:22:24 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:22:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Free Internet Act References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC868@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://123.writeboard.com/logmjm18j8w95y09lxmqp46q Password is "redditcat" ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Mi 22.02.2012 08:47 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Remote Participation Hi all Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a central role. This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: > Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > hosts, facilitators and chairs. We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them to participate. Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance for the additional expense involved. Anriette On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Sala and everyone, > > I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth > paragraph to follow the second - see below. > > Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote > participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind > I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a > separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph > 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to > the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) > > Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva > De > > 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate > the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, > the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting > this month - February 2012 - which was opened to observers. > > 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral > part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible > to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > participation. > > 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all > sessions and not just the Main Sessions. > > 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live > transcript. > > 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > than one function. > > 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and > work together to bring them about: > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an > equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth > to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance > to enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage > through RP that will be available. > > · Always assigning exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and > are responsible for interactions between the meeting's physical > participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > · Providing multiple methods - video, voice and text channel, as well > as real-time transcription and video streaming - of coverage of the meeting > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP. > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society > that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to > ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted > to ensure improved remote participation processes. > > 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, > and who wish to do so from a remote location. > > 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > private sector in enhancing remote participation. > > 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > reality. > > 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > countries could access the IGF. > > 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture > where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > methodology. > > 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to > sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > also include the following:- > > · Outreach; > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in > a series of strategic roll out; > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can > be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > . > > > > > > On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, > more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the > list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as > possible to include your comments into the Statement on the > Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for > consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC > statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi > and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue > on how we can actively contribute in this area. > > If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you > could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied > the text below. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, > and the MAG meeting this month - February 2012 - which was opened to > observers. > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral > part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without > effective remote participation. > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team > from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred > with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to > live transcript. > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to > ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > and not just the Main Sessions. > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving > more than one function. > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, > and work together to bring them about: > > * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > participants through planning meetings to give online and > offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and > contribute to meetings. > > * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with > hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from > offline participants. > > * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > participation and its moderation and post session or meeting > reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the > opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. > > * Always assigning exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same > time, and are responsible for interactions between the > meeting's physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and > the remote participants). > > * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for > those physically present in Geneva and those observing the > meeting remotely. > > * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > * Providing multiple methods - video, voice and text channel, as > well as real-time transcription and video streaming - of > coverage of the meeting > > * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > interactive presentations access through RP. > > * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical > elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote > participation processes. > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > private sector in enhancing remote participation. > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote > participation a reality. > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries > and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > these countries could access the IGF. > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture > where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > methodology. > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain > a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should > also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > also include the following:- > > · Outreach; > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > IGF in a series of strategic roll out; > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > . > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org > >, > at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > > writes > > What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - > well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat > and/or Google > > > Do they have a product which competes with the current market > leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something > which works, of course - historically their tools have been > allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or > whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the > battle. > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 22 07:06:23 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:06:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Free Internet Act In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC868@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC868@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear all, I've looked at the proposal for the "Free Internet Act" earlier. It's great to mobilize people around the issue of Internet Governance, but the "Free Internet Act" has same gaping holes. All it says about human rights, for instance, is: "This treaty assumes that all governments will recognize basic human rights as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as defined by the United Nations." That won't cut it. I've contacted the creator and made him aware of some of the relevant work that was done last year, including that of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition. This goes to show that too much drafting work in the field of Internet Governance is done, and not enough operationalization of existing drafts, principles. The wheel of human rights-sensitive Intenret Governance does not need to be reinvented. Rather, it should be greased. Kind regards Matthias -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2012 12:22 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Free Internet Act http://123.writeboard.com/logmjm18j8w95y09lxmqp46q Password is "redditcat" ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen Gesendet: Mi 22.02.2012 08:47 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Remote Participation Hi all Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a central role. This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: > Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation and > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > hosts, facilitators and chairs. We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them to participate. Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance for the additional expense involved. Anriette On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Sala and everyone, > > I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth > paragraph to follow the second - see below. > > Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have > remote participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with > that in mind I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say > 'how' in a separate statement. In this case the statement would close > at paragraph 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I > haven't done that to the document because no one seems to agree with > me :-) > > Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva > De > > 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and > the MAG meeting this month - February 2012 - which was opened to observers. > > 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > integral part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without > effective remote participation. > > 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all > sessions and not just the Main Sessions. > > 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third > day, morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live > transcript. > > 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > than one function. > > 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, > and work together to bring them about: > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an > equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth > to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance > to enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage > through RP that will be available. > > · Always assigning exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, > and are responsible for interactions between the meeting's physical > participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > · Providing multiple methods - video, voice and text channel, as well > as real-time transcription and video streaming - of coverage of the > meeting > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP. > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society > that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and > to ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been > highlighted to ensure improved remote participation processes. > > 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. > > 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > private sector in enhancing remote participation. > > 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation > a reality. > > 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is > extremely expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > countries and territories. Remote participation was the only way that > any of these countries could access the IGF. > > 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > culture where remote participation is prioritised through exploring > tested methodology. > > 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as > well bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply > and redundancy options where back up generators are critical to > maintain a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > should also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > also include the following:- > > · Outreach; > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF > in a series of strategic roll out; > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > . > > > > > > On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, > more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the > list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as > possible to include your comments into the Statement on the > Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for > consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC > statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi > and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue > on how we can actively contribute in this area. > > If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you > could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied > the text below. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, > and the MAG meeting this month - February 2012 - which was opened to > observers. > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral > part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without > effective remote participation. > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team > from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred > with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to > live transcript. > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to > ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > and not just the Main Sessions. > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving > more than one function. > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, > and work together to bring them about: > > * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > participants through planning meetings to give online and > offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and > contribute to meetings. > > * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with > hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from > offline participants. > > * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > participation and its moderation and post session or meeting > reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the > opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. > > * Always assigning exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same > time, and are responsible for interactions between the > meeting's physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and > the remote participants). > > * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for > those physically present in Geneva and those observing the > meeting remotely. > > * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > * Providing multiple methods - video, voice and text channel, as > well as real-time transcription and video streaming - of > coverage of the meeting > > * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > interactive presentations access through RP. > > * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical > elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote > participation processes. > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > private sector in enhancing remote participation. > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote > participation a reality. > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries > and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > these countries could access the IGF. > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture > where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > methodology. > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain > a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should > also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > also include the following:- > > · Outreach; > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > IGF in a series of strategic roll out; > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > . > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org > >, > at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > > > writes > > What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - > well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat > and/or Google > > > Do they have a product which competes with the current market > leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something > which works, of course - historically their tools have been > allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or > whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the > battle. > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 22 07:32:11 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:32:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> Message-ID: I'm seeing two issues - or perhaps two different types of meeting. The first type is the smaller Open Consultations and most particularly the MAG meetings. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote > participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is > aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them > to participate. For a MAG meeting particularly where participants are individually identified by name before the meeting as entitled to be present then what Anriette suggests should be an automatic part of the opening of the meeting. At the IGF things might be a bit different. At large sessions - the plenaries and the very popular workshops - the name introductions are limited to the panel and the moderators. According to my rather faulty memory, from 'attending' the IGF in Nairobi online and from being physically present before, the 'presence' of remote participants has been mentioned fairly routinely from the Vilnius meeting. A useful principle might be to refer to the participation of people not in the room in the introduction, and in any meeting where there is a more formal introduction of those physically present then those remotely present should be introduced as well. In some cases at the IGF a remote participant can actually be physically present but in a different workshop. About the budgeting - yes and yes - and alongside the budgeting there is a need for an ample supply of remote moderators to facilitate interventions from remote participants. And it is important that remote participants should register. It would be VERY nice if the initial general invitation could formally include remote participants in its wording - but I don't expect that to happen. Deirdre On 22 February 2012 03:47, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all > > Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week > I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a > central role. > > > This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: > > Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > > and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > > hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate > the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote > participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is > aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them > to participate. > > Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget > that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance > for the additional expense involved. > > Anriette > > > > > On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Dear Sala and everyone, > > > > I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth > > paragraph to follow the second - see below. > > > > Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote > > participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind > > I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a > > separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph > > 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to > > the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) > > > > Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva > > De > > > > 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > > part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate > > the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, > > the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting > > this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. > > > > 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral > > part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible > > to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > > participation. > > > > 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > > host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all > > sessions and not just the Main Sessions. > > > > 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > > team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > > > 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > > occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > > morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > > observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live > > transcript. > > > > 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > > contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > > than one function. > > > > 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > > the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and > > work together to bring them about: > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants > > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an > > equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth > > to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance > > to enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > > and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > > hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage > > through RP that will be available. > > > > · Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and > > are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical > > participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > > physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well > > as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the > meeting > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > > presentations access through RP. > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society > > that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to > > ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted > > to ensure improved remote participation processes. > > > > 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > > from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, > > and who wish to do so from a remote location. > > > > 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > > private sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > > outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > > reality. > > > > 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture > > where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > methodology. > > > > 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > > redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to > > sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > > also include the following:- > > > > · Outreach; > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in > > a series of strategic roll out; > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can > > be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > > > 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > > WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, > > more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the > > list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as > > possible to include your comments into the Statement on the > > Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for > > consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > > > The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC > > statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi > > and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue > > on how we can actively contribute in this area. > > > > If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you > > could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied > > the text below. > > > > Warm Regards, > > Sala > > > > URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > > > We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > > part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, > > and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > > observers. > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral > > part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > > impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without > > effective remote participation. > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team > > from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred > > with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > > morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > > observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to > > live transcript. > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to > > ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > > and not just the Main Sessions. > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > > contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving > > more than one function. > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > > the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, > > and work together to bring them about: > > > > * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > > participants through planning meetings to give online and > > offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and > > contribute to meetings. > > > > * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > > bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with > > hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from > > offline participants. > > > > * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > > participation and its moderation and post session or meeting > > reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > > > * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > > meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the > > opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. > > > > * Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same > > time, and are responsible for interactions between the > > meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and > > the remote participants). > > > > * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for > > those physically present in Geneva and those observing the > > meeting remotely. > > > > * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as > > well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of > > coverage of the meeting > > > > * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > > interactive presentations access through RP. > > > > * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > > Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > > Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical > > elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote > > participation processes. > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > > from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > > meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > > private sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > > outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote > > participation a reality. > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries > > and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > > these countries could access the IGF. > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture > > where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > methodology. > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > > redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain > > a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should > > also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > > capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > > also include the following:- > > > > · Outreach; > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out; > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > > WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry > > > > wrote: > > > > In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org > > >, > > at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > > > writes > > > > What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - > > well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat > > and/or Google > > > > > > Do they have a product which competes with the current market > > leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something > > which works, of course - historically their tools have been > > allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or > > whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the > > battle. > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed Feb 22 07:47:25 2012 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:47:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for RP. Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should prepare guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the limitations. The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, where he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent helps), be aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": assertive but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, ...and the list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience helps. Ultimately, he has to be credible. All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. It is slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train chairs how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). What can we do for IGF chairs? - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic expectations about their effectiveness - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good examples, where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF meeting, collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, introduced the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about the role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time management). Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes in social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 years. Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made this possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at every IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and successful. Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not work well, but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF secretariat and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF RPWG started with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, they discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to participate, they liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat work behind the scenes.... I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know that they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should speak out more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize /enough/ the great success of RP and need to give it another push without making it too formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 needs mix of recognition, funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work which is highly professional) and the ownership of the IGF community. I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on Anriette's idea for guidelines..... Regards, Jovan *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu*| **Twitter:*@jovankurbalija *The latest from Diplo: *Learn about Internet governance and ICT policy: enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (more info ). On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all > > Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week > I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a > central role. > > > This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: >> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> hosts, facilitators and chairs. > We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate > the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote > participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is > aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them > to participate. > > Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget > that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance > for the additional expense involved. > > Anriette > > > > > On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> Dear Sala and everyone, >> >> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth >> paragraph to follow the second - see below. >> >> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote >> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind >> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a >> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph >> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to >> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) >> >> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva >> De >> >> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate >> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, >> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting >> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >> >> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible >> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >> participation. >> >> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. >> >> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live >> transcript. >> >> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >> than one function. >> >> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >> work together to bring them about: >> >> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants >> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >> >> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth >> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance >> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. >> >> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, >> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >> through RP that will be available. >> >> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and >> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical >> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). >> >> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> >> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting >> >> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> presentations access through RP. >> >> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted >> to ensure improved remote participation processes. >> >> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, >> and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a >> reality. >> >> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >> countries could access the IGF. >> >> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> >> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a >> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> >> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> also include the following:- >> >> · Outreach; >> >> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in >> a series of strategic roll out; >> >> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can >> be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, >> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the >> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as >> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the >> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for >> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC >> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi >> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue >> on how we can actively contribute in this area. >> >> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you >> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied >> the text below. >> >> Warm Regards, >> Sala >> >> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, >> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to >> observers. >> >> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral >> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without >> effective remote participation. >> >> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team >> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to >> live transcript. >> >> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions >> and not just the Main Sessions. >> >> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving >> more than one function. >> >> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, >> and work together to bring them about: >> >> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >> participants through planning meetings to give online and >> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and >> contribute to meetings. >> >> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with >> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from >> offline participants. >> >> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting >> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the >> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. >> >> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same >> time, and are responsible for interactions between the >> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and >> the remote participants). >> >> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for >> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the >> meeting remotely. >> >> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as >> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of >> coverage of the meeting >> >> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >> interactive presentations access through RP. >> >> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil >> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical >> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote >> participation processes. >> >> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >> participation a reality. >> >> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries >> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of >> these countries could access the IGF. >> >> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> >> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain >> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should >> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> >> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> also include the following:- >> >> · Outreach; >> >> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the >> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; >> >> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments >> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry >> > > wrote: >> >> In message<46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org >> >, >> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra >> > writes >> >> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - >> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat >> and/or Google >> >> >> Do they have a product which competes with the current market >> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something >> which works, of course - historically their tools have been >> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or >> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the >> battle. >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 iza at anr.org Wed Feb 22 08:49:58 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:49:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] CSTD WG on IGF - Day 3 Message-ID: Last night it was around 8 pm finishing the work mostly around C Funding. But this morning we are still discussing some remaining areas. Now we are entering discussion on how the Final Report be submitted, to CSTD [only] and/or to CSTD and GA also. After some closure on this which is vague enough, we started to talk about the Funding and reached agreement. Then we entered the discussion on Point D, Broadening participation. Suggestions were made to re-edit the Chair's draft, proceeded with that suggestion, it is more of logical reorganization rather than that of political views. After lunch, we will go discuss about the Remote participation. Our text we are going to propose is as follows: We are not quite sure if we could finish all the work by end of today. The Chair indicated that we will finish by 18:30. --- Improve Remote Participation Remote participation needs to be seen as an integral part of the IGF process. It has steadily improved, in particular through remote moderatos, and remote hubs. However, there is still room for improvement, particularly in the following areas: - ensuring chairs and moderators give 'online' and 'offline' participants equal recognition and opportunity to participate through establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. - ensure that low bandwidth conditions are accommodated; - fostering multiligualism in remote participation by ensuring online-meeting platforms interface with onsite interpretation; - institutionalise mechanisms, such as captioning as they are invaluable to remote participants, non-native English speakers, and people with hearing and visual impairment. Effective remote participation requires stable and predictable funding to cover remote participation management and technical expenses in order to avoid relying solely on voluntary work. The Secretariat and the host country should work together to ensure the availability of adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 08:58:16 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:28:16 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all, I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working group, but not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views. I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the other IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for RP, including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as an integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot remember... and others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the RPWG in formal IGF meetings. I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the concern about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet recognized as such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and appalled by the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting process. RP is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it work. Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the on site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the chair tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling factors in the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is indispensable. The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding for attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to collaborate on site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double roles during my term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most part, we are self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had some funding from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host country and IGF secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, equipment) at the meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter nowadays. The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a dynamic coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on practical implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing and happy to collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training materials, elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs. We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy to the IGC list as well for your feedback. Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on the IGF RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given important impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going! Saludos, Ginger ** On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is > essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for RP. > Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should prepare > guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group > guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the limitations. > > The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, where > he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent helps), > be aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit > communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": assertive > but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not > intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, ...and the > list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience helps. > Ultimately, he has to be credible. > > All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm > this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. It is > slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train chairs > how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). > > What can we do for IGF chairs? > - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic > expectations about their effectiveness > - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good examples, > where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF meeting, > collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, introduced > the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! > - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about the > role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time management). > > Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes in > social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 > years. Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made > this possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people > running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at every > IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and successful. > Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not work > well, but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF > secretariat and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF > RPWG started with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the > meeting, they discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to > participate, they liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat > work behind the scenes.... > > I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know that > they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should speak out > more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their > experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize *enough*the great success of RP and need to give it another push without making it > too formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 needs mix of > recognition, funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work which is > highly professional) and the ownership of the IGF community. > > I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on > Anriette's idea for guidelines..... > > Regards, Jovan > > ******** > > *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija **** > > ** ** > > *****The latest from Diplo: * Learn about Internet governance and ICT > policy: enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme(more > info ). > > On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Hi all > > Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week > I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a > central role. > > > This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: > > Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate > the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote > participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is > aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them > to participate. > > Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget > that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance > for the additional expense involved. > > Anriette > > > > > On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Dear Sala and everyone, > > I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth > paragraph to follow the second - see below. > > Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote > participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind > I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a > separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph > 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to > the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) > > Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva > De > > 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate > the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, > the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting > this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. > > 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral > part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible > to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > participation. > > 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all > sessions and not just the Main Sessions. > > 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live > transcript. > > 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > than one function. > > 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and > work together to bring them about: > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an > equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth > to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance > to enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage > through RP that will be available. > > · Always assigning exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and > are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical > participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well > as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP. > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society > that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to > ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted > to ensure improved remote participation processes. > > 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, > and who wish to do so from a remote location. > > 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > private sector in enhancing remote participation. > > 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > reality. > > 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > countries could access the IGF. > > 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture > where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > methodology. > > 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to > sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > also include the following:- > > · Outreach; > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in > a series of strategic roll out; > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can > be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles . > > > > > On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, > more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the > list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as > possible to include your comments into the Statement on the > Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for > consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. > > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC > statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi > and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue > on how we can actively contribute in this area. > > If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you > could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied > the text below. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > > We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, > and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > observers. > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral > part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without > effective remote participation. > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team > from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred > with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to > live transcript. > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to > ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > and not just the Main Sessions. > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving > more than one function. > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, > and work together to bring them about: > > * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > participants through planning meetings to give online and > offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and > contribute to meetings. > > * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with > hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from > offline participants. > > * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > participation and its moderation and post session or meeting > reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the > opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. > > * Always assigning exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same > time, and are responsible for interactions between the > meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and > the remote participants). > > * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for > those physically present in Geneva and those observing the > meeting remotely. > > * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as > well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of > coverage of the meeting > > * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > interactive presentations access through RP. > > * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical > elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote > participation processes. > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > private sector in enhancing remote participation. > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote > participation a reality. > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries > and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > these countries could access the IGF. > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture > where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > methodology. > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain > a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should > also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > also include the following:- > > · Outreach; > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > IGF in a series of strategic roll out; > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > . > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org > <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org>>, > at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > > writes > > What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - > well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat > and/or Google > > > Do they have a product which competes with the current market > leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something > which works, of course - historically their tools have been > allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or > whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the > battle. > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 09:26:18 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:26:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: I agree in principle. In my opinion, I think it is necessary to launch the topics of discussion that we can relay to the mailing lists at local, sub regional and regional levels. This will prearrange RP. And if that is the case, these discussion topics may be sent two months prior to that national actors can react. In our mailing lists, we enrolled participants with skills and proven expertise can contribute actively to the topics scheduled. The mailing list has the advantage of allowing the actors to react wherever they may be. A very interesting proposal by Jovan is that each level of national IGF, it is proposed that people can be trained to the moderation of discussion for RP. These individuals trained can also help to summarize the discussion by including the observations at the local level. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque > Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all, > > I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working group, > but not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views. > > I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely > important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the > other IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for > RP, including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is > indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as an > integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes > suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the > presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a > volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot remember... and > others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the RPWG in > formal IGF meetings. > > I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to > implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the > concern about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room > difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an > institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet recognized > as such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and appalled > by the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred > precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting process. > RP is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote > moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it > work. > > Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the on > site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the chair > tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling factors in > the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a > required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is > indispensable. > > The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding for > attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to collaborate on > site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double roles during > my term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most part, we are > self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had some funding > from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host country and IGF > secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, equipment) at the > meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter nowadays. > > The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a > dynamic coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on > practical implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing > and happy to collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training > materials, elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs. > > We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy to > the IGC list as well for your feedback. > > Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote > Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on the IGF > RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given important > impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going! > > Saludos, Ginger > > ** > > > > On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > >> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is >> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for RP. >> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should prepare >> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group >> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the limitations. >> >> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, >> where he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent >> helps), be aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit >> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": assertive >> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not >> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, ...and the >> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience helps. >> Ultimately, he has to be credible. >> >> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm >> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. It is >> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train chairs >> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). >> >> What can we do for IGF chairs? >> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic >> expectations about their effectiveness >> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good examples, >> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF meeting, >> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, introduced >> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! >> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about the >> role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time management). >> >> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes in >> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 >> years. Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made >> this possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people >> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at every >> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and successful. >> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not work >> well, but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF >> secretariat and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF >> RPWG started with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the >> meeting, they discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to >> participate, they liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat >> work behind the scenes.... >> >> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know that >> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should speak out >> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their >> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize *enough >> * the great success of RP and need to give it another push without >> making it too formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 needs mix >> of recognition, funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work which is >> highly professional) and the ownership of the IGF community. >> >> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on >> Anriette's idea for guidelines..... >> >> Regards, Jovan >> >> ******** >> >> *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *****The latest from Diplo: * Learn about Internet governance and ICT >> policy: enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building >> Programme (more info ). >> >> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week >> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a >> central role. >> >> >> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: >> >> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate >> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote >> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is >> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them >> to participate. >> >> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget >> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance >> for the additional expense involved. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Dear Sala and everyone, >> >> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth >> paragraph to follow the second - see below. >> >> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote >> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind >> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a >> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph >> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to >> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) >> >> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva >> De >> >> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate >> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, >> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting >> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >> >> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible >> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >> participation. >> >> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. >> >> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live >> transcript. >> >> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >> than one function. >> >> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >> work together to bring them about: >> >> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants >> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >> >> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth >> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance >> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. >> >> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, >> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >> through RP that will be available. >> >> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and >> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical >> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). >> >> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> >> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting >> >> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> presentations access through RP. >> >> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted >> to ensure improved remote participation processes. >> >> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, >> and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a >> reality. >> >> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >> countries could access the IGF. >> >> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> >> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a >> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> >> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> also include the following:- >> >> · Outreach; >> >> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in >> a series of strategic roll out; >> >> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can >> be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles . >> >> >> >> >> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, >> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the >> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as >> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the >> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for >> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC >> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi >> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue >> on how we can actively contribute in this area. >> >> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you >> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied >> the text below. >> >> Warm Regards, >> Sala >> >> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, >> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to >> observers. >> >> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral >> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without >> effective remote participation. >> >> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team >> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to >> live transcript. >> >> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions >> and not just the Main Sessions. >> >> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving >> more than one function. >> >> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, >> and work together to bring them about: >> >> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >> participants through planning meetings to give online and >> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and >> contribute to meetings. >> >> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with >> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from >> offline participants. >> >> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting >> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the >> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. >> >> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same >> time, and are responsible for interactions between the >> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and >> the remote participants). >> >> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for >> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the >> meeting remotely. >> >> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as >> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of >> coverage of the meeting >> >> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >> interactive presentations access through RP. >> >> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil >> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical >> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote >> participation processes. >> >> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >> participation a reality. >> >> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries >> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of >> these countries could access the IGF. >> >> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> >> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain >> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should >> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> >> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> also include the following:- >> >> · Outreach; >> >> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the >> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; >> >> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments >> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry >> > > wrote: >> >> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org >> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org>>, >> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra >> > writes >> >> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - >> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat >> and/or Google >> >> >> Do they have a product which competes with the current market >> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something >> which works, of course - historically their tools have been >> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or >> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the >> battle. >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 22 09:35:31 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 23:35:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Thank you Ginger for your very timely online intervention! We were almost finishing the part on Remote Participation, and then I saw your following post and made some additional comment followed by Anriette, and Markus sort of agreed to offer additional language to recognize the value of the works of moderators such as Ginger and Marilia, among others. izumi 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque : > Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all, > > I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working group, but > not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views. > > I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely > important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the other > IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for RP, > including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is > indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as an > integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes > suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the > presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a > volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot remember... and > others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the RPWG in > formal IGF meetings. > > I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to > implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the concern > about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room > difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an > institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet recognized as > such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and appalled by > the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred > precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting process. RP > is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote > moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it work. > > Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the on > site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the chair > tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling factors in > the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a > required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is > indispensable. > > The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding for > attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to collaborate on > site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double roles during my > term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most part, we are > self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had some funding > from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host country and IGF > secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, equipment) at the > meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter nowadays. > > The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a dynamic > coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on practical > implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing and happy to > collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training materials, > elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs. > > We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy to the > IGC list as well for your feedback. > > Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote > Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on the IGF > RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given important > impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going! > > Saludos, Ginger > > > > > On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >> >> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is >> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for RP. >> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should prepare >> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group >> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the limitations. >> >> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, where >> he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent helps), be >> aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit >> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": assertive >> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not >> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, ...and the >> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience helps. >> Ultimately, he has to be credible. >> >> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm >> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. It is >> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train chairs >> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). >> >> What can we do for IGF chairs? >> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic >> expectations about their effectiveness >> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good examples, >> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF meeting, >> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, introduced >> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! >> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about the >> role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time management). >> >> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes in >> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 years. >> Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made this >> possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people >> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at every >> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and successful. >> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not work well, >> but the human input is decisive.  We were fortunate that the IGF secretariat >> and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF RPWG started >> with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, they >> discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to participate, they >> liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat work behind the >> scenes.... >> >> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know that >> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should speak out >> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their >> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize enough the >> great success of RP and need to give it another push without making it too >> formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 needs mix of recognition, >> funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work which is highly >> professional) and the ownership of  the IGF community. >> >> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on >> Anriette's idea for guidelines..... >> >> Regards, Jovan >> >> Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu  | Twitter: @jovankurbalija >> >> >> >> The latest from Diplo:  Learn about Internet governance and ICT policy: >> enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (more >> info). >> >> >> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week >> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a >> central role. >> >> >> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: >> >> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate >> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote >> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is >> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them >> to participate. >> >> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget >> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance >> for the additional expense involved. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Dear Sala and everyone, >> >> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth >> paragraph to follow the second - see below. >> >> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote >> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind >> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a >> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph >> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to >> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) >> >> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva >> De >> >> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate >> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, >> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting >> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >> >> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible >> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >> participation. >> >> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. >> >> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live >> transcript. >> >> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >> than one function. >> >> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >> work together to bring them about: >> >> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants >> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >> >> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth >> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance >> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. >> >> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, >> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >> through RP that will be available. >> >> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and >> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical >> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). >> >> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> >> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the >> meeting >> >> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> presentations access through RP. >> >> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted >> to ensure improved remote participation processes. >> >> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, >> and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a >> reality. >> >> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >> countries could access the IGF. >> >> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> >> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a >> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> >> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> also include the following:- >> >> · Outreach; >> >> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in >> a series of strategic roll out; >> >> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can >> be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, >> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the >> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as >> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the >> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for >> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC >> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi >> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue >> on how we can actively contribute in this area. >> >> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you >> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied >> the text below. >> >> Warm Regards, >> Sala >> >> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, >> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to >> observers. >> >> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral >> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without >> effective remote participation. >> >> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team >> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to >> live transcript. >> >> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions >> and not just the Main Sessions. >> >> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving >> more than one function. >> >> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, >> and work together to bring them about: >> >> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >> participants through planning meetings to give online and >> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and >> contribute to meetings. >> >> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with >> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from >> offline participants. >> >> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting >> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the >> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. >> >> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same >> time, and are responsible for interactions between the >> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and >> the remote participants). >> >> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for >> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the >> meeting remotely. >> >> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as >> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of >> coverage of the meeting >> >> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >> interactive presentations access through RP. >> >> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil >> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical >> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote >> participation processes. >> >> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >> participation a reality. >> >> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries >> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of >> these countries could access the IGF. >> >> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> >> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain >> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should >> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> >> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> also include the following:- >> >> · Outreach; >> >> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the >> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; >> >> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments >> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry >> > > wrote: >> >> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org >> >, >> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra >> > writes >> >> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - >> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat >> and/or Google >> >> >> Do they have a product which competes with the current market >> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something >> which works, of course - historically their tools have been >> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or >> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the >> battle. >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Feb 22 09:38:52 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:38:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Free Internet Act In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC868@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC868@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, Thanks for passing along this serious and important document. Why don't you propose to the WGIGF that it include in its report this pearl from the Preamble: "The Internet is mankind’s truest democracy that has not been tainted by the weak immoral actions of the institutions that run our global society. The Netizens of the Internet do not believe in these institutions and their ways of strife that seek to destroy everything they touch through actions driven by greed, intolerance, immorality, and violence." Let us know how it goes. Thanks, Bill On Feb 22, 2012, at 12:22 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > http://123.writeboard.com/logmjm18j8w95y09lxmqp46q > > Password is "redditcat" > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Anriette Esterhuysen > Gesendet: Mi 22.02.2012 08:47 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] Remote Participation > > > > Hi all > > Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week > I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a > central role. > > > This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: >> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> hosts, facilitators and chairs. > > We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate > the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote > participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is > aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them > to participate. > > Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget > that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance > for the additional expense involved. > > Anriette > > > > > On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> Dear Sala and everyone, >> >> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth >> paragraph to follow the second - see below. >> >> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote >> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind >> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a >> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph >> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to >> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) >> >> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva >> De >> >> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate >> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, >> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting >> this month - February 2012 - which was opened to observers. >> >> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible >> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >> participation. >> >> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. >> >> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live >> transcript. >> >> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >> than one function. >> >> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >> work together to bring them about: >> >> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants >> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >> >> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth >> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance >> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. >> >> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, >> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >> through RP that will be available. >> >> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and >> are responsible for interactions between the meeting's physical >> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). >> >> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> >> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >> · Providing multiple methods - video, voice and text channel, as well >> as real-time transcription and video streaming - of coverage of the meeting >> >> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> presentations access through RP. >> >> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted >> to ensure improved remote participation processes. >> >> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, >> and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a >> reality. >> >> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >> countries could access the IGF. >> >> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> >> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a >> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> >> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> also include the following:- >> >> · Outreach; >> >> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in >> a series of strategic roll out; >> >> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can >> be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, >> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the >> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as >> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the >> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for >> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC >> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi >> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue >> on how we can actively contribute in this area. >> >> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you >> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied >> the text below. >> >> Warm Regards, >> Sala >> >> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, >> and the MAG meeting this month - February 2012 - which was opened to >> observers. >> >> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral >> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without >> effective remote participation. >> >> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team >> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to >> live transcript. >> >> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions >> and not just the Main Sessions. >> >> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving >> more than one function. >> >> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, >> and work together to bring them about: >> >> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >> participants through planning meetings to give online and >> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and >> contribute to meetings. >> >> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with >> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from >> offline participants. >> >> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting >> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the >> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. >> >> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same >> time, and are responsible for interactions between the >> meeting's physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and >> the remote participants). >> >> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for >> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the >> meeting remotely. >> >> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >> * Providing multiple methods - video, voice and text channel, as >> well as real-time transcription and video streaming - of >> coverage of the meeting >> >> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >> interactive presentations access through RP. >> >> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil >> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical >> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote >> participation processes. >> >> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >> participation a reality. >> >> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries >> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of >> these countries could access the IGF. >> >> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> >> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain >> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should >> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> >> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> also include the following:- >> >> · Outreach; >> >> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the >> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; >> >> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments >> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry >> > > wrote: >> >> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org >> >, >> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra >> > writes >> >> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - >> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat >> and/or Google >> >> >> Do they have a product which competes with the current market >> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something >> which works, of course - historically their tools have been >> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or >> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the >> battle. >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Feb 22 09:51:03 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:51:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <4F4500D7.40107@apc.org> We will have a chance to look at the final text and decide whether it is clear enough. Here it is in its current form: Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. While remote participation has improved, in particular through remote moderators and hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas: - The Secretariat should continue to ensure the availability of adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators. - Chairs and moderators should give remote and onsite participants equal recognition and the opportunity to participate. - Low bandwidth connections to remote participation tools should be accommodated; - Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be fostered by ensuring online-meeting platforms interface with onsite interpretation; - Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live transcripts, should be kept as an integral part of the IGF. Such mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, but also to non-native English speakers, and people with hearing and visual impairments, whether they are onsite or not. On 22/02/12 16:35, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thank you Ginger for your very timely online intervention! > We were almost finishing the part on Remote Participation, and then > I saw your following post and made some additional comment followed > by Anriette, and Markus sort of agreed to offer additional language > to recognize the value of the works of moderators such as Ginger and > Marilia, among others. > > izumi > > > 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque : >> Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all, >> >> I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working group, but >> not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views. >> >> I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely >> important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the other >> IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for RP, >> including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is >> indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as an >> integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes >> suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the >> presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a >> volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot remember... and >> others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the RPWG in >> formal IGF meetings. >> >> I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to >> implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the concern >> about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room >> difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an >> institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet recognized as >> such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and appalled by >> the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred >> precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting process. RP >> is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote >> moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it work. >> >> Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the on >> site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the chair >> tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling factors in >> the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a >> required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is >> indispensable. >> >> The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding for >> attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to collaborate on >> site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double roles during my >> term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most part, we are >> self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had some funding >> from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host country and IGF >> secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, equipment) at the >> meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter nowadays. >> >> The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a dynamic >> coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on practical >> implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing and happy to >> collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training materials, >> elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs. >> >> We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy to the >> IGC list as well for your feedback. >> >> Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote >> Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on the IGF >> RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given important >> impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going! >> >> Saludos, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is >>> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for RP. >>> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should prepare >>> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group >>> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the limitations. >>> >>> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, where >>> he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent helps), be >>> aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit >>> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": assertive >>> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not >>> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, ...and the >>> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience helps. >>> Ultimately, he has to be credible. >>> >>> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm >>> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. It is >>> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train chairs >>> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). >>> >>> What can we do for IGF chairs? >>> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic >>> expectations about their effectiveness >>> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good examples, >>> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF meeting, >>> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, introduced >>> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! >>> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about the >>> role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time management). >>> >>> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes in >>> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 years. >>> Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made this >>> possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people >>> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at every >>> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and successful. >>> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not work well, >>> but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF secretariat >>> and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF RPWG started >>> with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, they >>> discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to participate, they >>> liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat work behind the >>> scenes.... >>> >>> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know that >>> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should speak out >>> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their >>> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize enough the >>> great success of RP and need to give it another push without making it too >>> formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 needs mix of recognition, >>> funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work which is highly >>> professional) and the ownership of the IGF community. >>> >>> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on >>> Anriette's idea for guidelines..... >>> >>> Regards, Jovan >>> >>> Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija >>> >>> >>> >>> The latest from Diplo: Learn about Internet governance and ICT policy: >>> enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (more >>> info). >>> >>> >>> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week >>> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a >>> central role. >>> >>> >>> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: >>> >>> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >>> >>> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate >>> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote >>> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is >>> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them >>> to participate. >>> >>> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget >>> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance >>> for the additional expense involved. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala and everyone, >>> >>> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth >>> paragraph to follow the second - see below. >>> >>> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote >>> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind >>> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a >>> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph >>> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to >>> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) >>> >>> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva >>> De >>> >>> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate >>> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, >>> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting >>> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >>> >>> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible >>> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >>> participation. >>> >>> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >>> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >>> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. >>> >>> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >>> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >>> >>> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >>> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live >>> transcript. >>> >>> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >>> than one function. >>> >>> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >>> work together to bring them about: >>> >>> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants >>> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >>> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >>> >>> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth >>> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance >>> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. >>> >>> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >>> >>> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, >>> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >>> through RP that will be available. >>> >>> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and >>> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical >>> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). >>> >>> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >>> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >>> >>> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>> >>> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >>> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the >>> meeting >>> >>> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >>> presentations access through RP. >>> >>> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >>> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >>> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted >>> to ensure improved remote participation processes. >>> >>> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, >>> and who wish to do so from a remote location. >>> >>> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >>> >>> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a >>> reality. >>> >>> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >>> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >>> countries could access the IGF. >>> >>> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>> methodology. >>> >>> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a >>> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >>> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >>> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>> >>> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >>> also include the following:- >>> >>> · Outreach; >>> >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>> >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in >>> a series of strategic roll out; >>> >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can >>> be better involved in the remote hubs etc >>> >>> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, >>> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the >>> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as >>> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the >>> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for >>> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >>> >>> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC >>> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi >>> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue >>> on how we can actively contribute in this area. >>> >>> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you >>> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied >>> the text below. >>> >>> Warm Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >>> >>> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >>> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >>> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, >>> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to >>> observers. >>> >>> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >>> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without >>> effective remote participation. >>> >>> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team >>> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >>> >>> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >>> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to >>> live transcript. >>> >>> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >>> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions >>> and not just the Main Sessions. >>> >>> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving >>> more than one function. >>> >>> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, >>> and work together to bring them about: >>> >>> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >>> participants through planning meetings to give online and >>> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and >>> contribute to meetings. >>> >>> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >>> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with >>> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from >>> offline participants. >>> >>> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >>> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting >>> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. >>> >>> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >>> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the >>> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. >>> >>> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same >>> time, and are responsible for interactions between the >>> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and >>> the remote participants). >>> >>> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for >>> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the >>> meeting remotely. >>> >>> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>> >>> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as >>> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of >>> coverage of the meeting >>> >>> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >>> interactive presentations access through RP. >>> >>> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil >>> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >>> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical >>> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote >>> participation processes. >>> >>> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >>> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. >>> >>> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >>> >>> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >>> participation a reality. >>> >>> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries >>> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of >>> these countries could access the IGF. >>> >>> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>> methodology. >>> >>> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain >>> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should >>> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >>> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>> >>> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >>> also include the following:- >>> >>> · Outreach; >>> >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>> >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the >>> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; >>> >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments >>> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc >>> >>> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org >>> >, >>> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra >>> > writes >>> >>> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - >>> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat >>> and/or Google >>> >>> >>> Do they have a product which competes with the current market >>> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something >>> which works, of course - historically their tools have been >>> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or >>> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the >>> battle. >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 10:26:28 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:56:28 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F4500D7.40107@apc.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> <4F4500D7.40107@apc.org> Message-ID: Anriette, Izumi, points for consideration/inclusion: Are there existing guidelines or requirements for IGF meetings and planning meetings? If so, is it possible to include RP as part of the required infrastructure? Is it appropriate to include the need for chair/moderator/participant/hub organizer awareness building and training activities? Shouldn't remote hubs be specifically stipulated as part of the RP activities? Can we stipulate that remote participants should be allowed to register and appear on the list of attendees to meetings? Thanks! Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque On 22 February 2012 10:21, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > We will have a chance to look at the final text and decide whether it is > clear enough. Here it is in its current form: > > > Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. While remote > participation has improved, in particular through remote moderators and > hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas: > > - The Secretariat should continue to ensure the availability of > adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators. > > - Chairs and moderators should give remote and onsite participants > equal recognition and the opportunity to participate. > > - Low bandwidth connections to remote participation tools should be > accommodated; > > - Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be fostered by > ensuring online-meeting platforms interface with onsite interpretation; > > - Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live > transcripts, should be kept as an integral part of the IGF. Such > mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, but also to > non-native English speakers, and people with hearing and visual > impairments, whether they are onsite or not. > On 22/02/12 16:35, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > > Thank you Ginger for your very timely online intervention! > > We were almost finishing the part on Remote Participation, and then > > I saw your following post and made some additional comment followed > > by Anriette, and Markus sort of agreed to offer additional language > > to recognize the value of the works of moderators such as Ginger and > > Marilia, among others. > > > > izumi > > > > > > 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque : > >> Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all, > >> > >> I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working group, > but > >> not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views. > >> > >> I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely > >> important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the > other > >> IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for > RP, > >> including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is > >> indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as an > >> integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes > >> suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the > >> presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a > >> volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot remember... > and > >> others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the RPWG > in > >> formal IGF meetings. > >> > >> I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to > >> implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the > concern > >> about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room > >> difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an > >> institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet > recognized as > >> such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and > appalled by > >> the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred > >> precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting > process. RP > >> is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote > >> moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it > work. > >> > >> Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the > on > >> site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the > chair > >> tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling factors > in > >> the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a > >> required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is > >> indispensable. > >> > >> The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding > for > >> attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to > collaborate on > >> site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double roles > during my > >> term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most part, we are > >> self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had some > funding > >> from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host country and > IGF > >> secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, equipment) at the > >> meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter nowadays. > >> > >> The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a > dynamic > >> coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on > practical > >> implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing and > happy to > >> collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training materials, > >> elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs. > >> > >> We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy to > the > >> IGC list as well for your feedback. > >> > >> Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote > >> Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on the > IGF > >> RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given > important > >> impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going! > >> > >> Saludos, Ginger > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is > >>> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for > RP. > >>> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should > prepare > >>> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group > >>> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the limitations. > >>> > >>> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, > where > >>> he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent > helps), be > >>> aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit > >>> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": > assertive > >>> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not > >>> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, ...and > the > >>> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience helps. > >>> Ultimately, he has to be credible. > >>> > >>> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm > >>> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. > It is > >>> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train > chairs > >>> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). > >>> > >>> What can we do for IGF chairs? > >>> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic > >>> expectations about their effectiveness > >>> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good examples, > >>> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF > meeting, > >>> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, > introduced > >>> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! > >>> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about > the > >>> role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time management). > >>> > >>> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes in > >>> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 > years. > >>> Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made this > >>> possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people > >>> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at every > >>> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and > successful. > >>> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not work > well, > >>> but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF > secretariat > >>> and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF RPWG > started > >>> with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, > they > >>> discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to participate, > they > >>> liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat work behind the > >>> scenes.... > >>> > >>> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know that > >>> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should > speak out > >>> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their > >>> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize > enough the > >>> great success of RP and need to give it another push without making it > too > >>> formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 needs mix of > recognition, > >>> funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work which is highly > >>> professional) and the ownership of the IGF community. > >>> > >>> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on > >>> Anriette's idea for guidelines..... > >>> > >>> Regards, Jovan > >>> > >>> Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The latest from Diplo: Learn about Internet governance and ICT policy: > >>> enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > (more > >>> info). > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week > >>> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a > >>> central role. > >>> > >>> > >>> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: > >>> > >>> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. > >>> > >>> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate > >>> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote > >>> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is > >>> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them > >>> to participate. > >>> > >>> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget > >>> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance > >>> for the additional expense involved. > >>> > >>> Anriette > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Sala and everyone, > >>> > >>> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth > >>> paragraph to follow the second - see below. > >>> > >>> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote > >>> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in > mind > >>> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a > >>> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph > >>> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to > >>> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) > >>> > >>> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva > >>> De > >>> > >>> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > appreciate > >>> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, > >>> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG > meeting > >>> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. > >>> > >>> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > integral > >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible > >>> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > >>> participation. > >>> > >>> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > >>> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all > >>> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. > >>> > >>> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > >>> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > >>> > >>> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > >>> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live > >>> transcript. > >>> > >>> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > >>> than one function. > >>> > >>> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, > and > >>> work together to bring them about: > >>> > >>> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > participants > >>> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an > >>> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > >>> > >>> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > bandwidth > >>> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance > >>> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. > >>> > >>> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. > >>> > >>> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > meetings, > >>> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage > >>> through RP that will be available. > >>> > >>> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation > >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, > and > >>> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical > >>> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). > >>> > >>> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > >>> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > >>> > >>> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. > >>> > >>> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well > >>> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the > >>> meeting > >>> > >>> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > >>> presentations access through RP. > >>> > >>> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society > >>> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and > to > >>> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been > highlighted > >>> to ensure improved remote participation processes. > >>> > >>> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > meetings, > >>> and who wish to do so from a remote location. > >>> > >>> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. > >>> > >>> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation > a > >>> reality. > >>> > >>> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is > extremely > >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > >>> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > >>> countries could access the IGF. > >>> > >>> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > culture > >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > >>> methodology. > >>> > >>> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as > well > >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a > >>> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > >>> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to > >>> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > >>> > >>> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > >>> also include the following:- > >>> > >>> · Outreach; > >>> > >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > >>> > >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF > in > >>> a series of strategic roll out; > >>> > >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can > >>> be better involved in the remote hubs etc > >>> > >>> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > >>> . > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, > >>> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the > >>> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as > >>> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the > >>> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for > >>> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. > >>> > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > >>> > >>> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC > >>> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi > >>> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue > >>> on how we can actively contribute in this area. > >>> > >>> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you > >>> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied > >>> the text below. > >>> > >>> Warm Regards, > >>> Sala > >>> > >>> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > >>> > >>> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > >>> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > >>> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, > >>> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened > to > >>> observers. > >>> > >>> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral > >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > >>> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without > >>> effective remote participation. > >>> > >>> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team > >>> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > >>> > >>> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred > >>> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to > >>> live transcript. > >>> > >>> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to > >>> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > >>> and not just the Main Sessions. > >>> > >>> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving > >>> more than one function. > >>> > >>> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > itself, > >>> and work together to bring them about: > >>> > >>> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > >>> participants through planning meetings to give online and > >>> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and > >>> contribute to meetings. > >>> > >>> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > >>> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with > >>> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from > >>> offline participants. > >>> > >>> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > >>> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting > >>> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. > >>> > >>> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > >>> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the > >>> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. > >>> > >>> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation > >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the > same > >>> time, and are responsible for interactions between the > >>> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair > and > >>> the remote participants). > >>> > >>> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both > for > >>> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the > >>> meeting remotely. > >>> > >>> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. > >>> > >>> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, > as > >>> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of > >>> coverage of the meeting > >>> > >>> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > >>> interactive presentations access through RP. > >>> > >>> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that > has > >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > >>> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > >>> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical > >>> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote > >>> participation processes. > >>> > >>> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all > stakeholders > >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > >>> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. > >>> > >>> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. > >>> > >>> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote > >>> participation a reality. > >>> > >>> There are regions around the world where transportation is > extremely > >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries > >>> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > >>> these countries could access the IGF. > >>> > >>> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > culture > >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > >>> methodology. > >>> > >>> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as > well > >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to > maintain > >>> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should > >>> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > >>> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote > participation. > >>> > >>> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > >>> also include the following:- > >>> > >>> · Outreach; > >>> > >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > >>> > >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > >>> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; > >>> > >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > >>> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc > >>> > >>> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF > 2011 > >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > >>> . > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry > >>> >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- > 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org > >>> >, > >>> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > >>> > > writes > >>> > >>> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - > >>> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat > >>> and/or Google > >>> > >>> > >>> Do they have a product which competes with the current market > >>> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something > >>> which works, of course - historically their tools have been > >>> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or > >>> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the > >>> battle. > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 22 10:28:22 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:28:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A0C26DC-1587-4721-8646-AF541022DA2A@apc.org> Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret that the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first phase of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened as this is not fair to the current list of nominees. We have submitted our names directly to the Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its procedures in the future. Best, Valeria On 17/02/2012, at 13:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear MAG NomCom, > > Kindly find APC's Application enclosed and am re-forwarding the same > to you. > > Regards, > Sala > > > > On 10/01/2012, at 11:00, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > > Fellow IGC List Members, > > The IGC's Nominating Committee (nomcom) has begun its work selecting > new members for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). Our work > was initiated by a letter from Under-Secretary-General Sha Zukang > requesting that we submit the names of potential candidates to the > IGF Secretariat by 31 January 2012. (See letter.) > > We do apologise for the late start, but the year-end holidays did > cause us some difficulty in communicating. So we will do our best to > get everything sorted in a proper manner in good time. > > The MAG's role is to assist the Secretary General in convening the > Internet Governance Forums. The Forums site provide an interactive, > collaborative space where all stakeholders can air their views and > exchange idea. > > The MAG comprises 56 Members from governments, the private sector > and civil society, including representatives from the academic and > technical communities. It holds meetings three times a year at the > Palais des Nations in Geneva and is preceded by open consultations > meetings. A list of current MAG members is found athttp://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/406-mag-2010 > . > > Request For Nominations > > Please submit nominations – including self-nominations – from which > we will select those to be advanced as IGC's recommendations for MAG > membership. The recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. > However, they should have a civil society identity, and be in broad > alignment with positions both stated in our charter. > > All members of MAG serve in their personal capacity, but are > expected to have extensive linkages with not only their respective > stakeholder groups, but also a wide range of other connections, such > as region, gender, and their local civil society. > > Current MAG members are encouraged to re-apply, but in the interests > of diversity, we would like to limit to those who have already > served 2 consecutive terms. > > In nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent to be > on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for his/her > candidature. > Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with > some clarity the activities and / or positions taken by the person > in the IG and information society arena. > The person should be informed that the details submitted may be > published even if the nomination is unsuccessful. > Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person > will be a good CS/ IGC representative on the MAG. > Those who are already on the MAG should also briefly mention how > they carried out their responsibilities in the last term(s), in > advocating and pushing IGC’s positions as well as the larger CS > positions. We would also like to hear what they have contributed, > what they intend to contribute and why they want to continue in the > role. Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the > wider CS constituencies, may also be mentioned. > Nominations should also include an assurance that those selected for > the MAG will maintain close engagement with CS constituencies, > including and especially the IGC. MAG selectees will be required to > keep both CS constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG > proceedings and related matters, as well as present/ push their > positions in the MAG. Nominations must be sent to (Jacqueline Morris > or to the list ) no later than midnight January 20, 2012 UTC. > It is recommended that nominees be members who have actively > participated in IGF meetings and activities in the past. > > Remember, we need your nominations by January 20. > > Sincerely, > > Jacqueline A. Morris > NomCom Chair > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ------------- > Valeria Betancourt > Directora / Manager > Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication > and Information Policy Programme > Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for > Progressive Communications, APC > http://www.apc.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 10:39:17 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:39:17 -0200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F4500D7.40107@apc.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> <4F4500D7.40107@apc.org> Message-ID: The problem with recognizing that RP is an integral part of the IGF is the following, in my view: a) Actors who lack funding to attend meetings make use of RP features are the ones who benefit the most from them. But there is a fear among actors (sometimes justifiable) that RP will be politically used as a solution to the problems related to participation, including as an argument to avoid increasing funding for physical attendance. Therefore, actors from developing countries generally do give RP the importance it deserves. b) Actors who do attend the IGF and have a legitimate desire to depict the IGF as inclusive and sometimes they overestimate the current capacity of RP to include people. The intention is good, but they are actually preventing some important self-criticism. And, as many times they are not the ones to really use it, they do not feel the necessity of RP on their own skin. RP is then caught in the cross-fire among this groups and, therefore, the arguments to move it forward are always winding and not as direct and concrete as they could be. Marília On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > We will have a chance to look at the final text and decide whether it is > clear enough. Here it is in its current form: > > > Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. While remote > participation has improved, in particular through remote moderators and > hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas: > > - The Secretariat should continue to ensure the availability of > adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators. > > - Chairs and moderators should give remote and onsite participants > equal recognition and the opportunity to participate. > > - Low bandwidth connections to remote participation tools should be > accommodated; > > - Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be fostered by > ensuring online-meeting platforms interface with onsite interpretation; > > - Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live > transcripts, should be kept as an integral part of the IGF. Such > mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, but also to > non-native English speakers, and people with hearing and visual > impairments, whether they are onsite or not. > On 22/02/12 16:35, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > > Thank you Ginger for your very timely online intervention! > > We were almost finishing the part on Remote Participation, and then > > I saw your following post and made some additional comment followed > > by Anriette, and Markus sort of agreed to offer additional language > > to recognize the value of the works of moderators such as Ginger and > > Marilia, among others. > > > > izumi > > > > > > 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque : > >> Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all, > >> > >> I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working group, > but > >> not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views. > >> > >> I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely > >> important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the > other > >> IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for > RP, > >> including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is > >> indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as an > >> integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes > >> suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the > >> presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a > >> volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot remember... > and > >> others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the RPWG > in > >> formal IGF meetings. > >> > >> I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to > >> implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the > concern > >> about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room > >> difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an > >> institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet > recognized as > >> such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and > appalled by > >> the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred > >> precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting > process. RP > >> is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote > >> moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it > work. > >> > >> Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the > on > >> site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the > chair > >> tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling factors > in > >> the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a > >> required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is > >> indispensable. > >> > >> The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding > for > >> attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to > collaborate on > >> site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double roles > during my > >> term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most part, we are > >> self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had some > funding > >> from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host country and > IGF > >> secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, equipment) at the > >> meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter nowadays. > >> > >> The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a > dynamic > >> coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on > practical > >> implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing and > happy to > >> collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training materials, > >> elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs. > >> > >> We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy to > the > >> IGC list as well for your feedback. > >> > >> Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote > >> Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on the > IGF > >> RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given > important > >> impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going! > >> > >> Saludos, Ginger > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is > >>> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for > RP. > >>> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should > prepare > >>> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group > >>> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the limitations. > >>> > >>> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, > where > >>> he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent > helps), be > >>> aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit > >>> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": > assertive > >>> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not > >>> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, ...and > the > >>> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience helps. > >>> Ultimately, he has to be credible. > >>> > >>> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm > >>> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. > It is > >>> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train > chairs > >>> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). > >>> > >>> What can we do for IGF chairs? > >>> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic > >>> expectations about their effectiveness > >>> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good examples, > >>> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF > meeting, > >>> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, > introduced > >>> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! > >>> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about > the > >>> role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time management). > >>> > >>> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes in > >>> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 > years. > >>> Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made this > >>> possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people > >>> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at every > >>> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and > successful. > >>> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not work > well, > >>> but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF > secretariat > >>> and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF RPWG > started > >>> with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, > they > >>> discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to participate, > they > >>> liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat work behind the > >>> scenes.... > >>> > >>> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know that > >>> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should > speak out > >>> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their > >>> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize > enough the > >>> great success of RP and need to give it another push without making it > too > >>> formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 needs mix of > recognition, > >>> funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work which is highly > >>> professional) and the ownership of the IGF community. > >>> > >>> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on > >>> Anriette's idea for guidelines..... > >>> > >>> Regards, Jovan > >>> > >>> Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The latest from Diplo: Learn about Internet governance and ICT policy: > >>> enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > (more > >>> info). > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all > >>> > >>> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week > >>> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a > >>> central role. > >>> > >>> > >>> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: > >>> > >>> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. > >>> > >>> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate > >>> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote > >>> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is > >>> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them > >>> to participate. > >>> > >>> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget > >>> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance > >>> for the additional expense involved. > >>> > >>> Anriette > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Sala and everyone, > >>> > >>> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth > >>> paragraph to follow the second - see below. > >>> > >>> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote > >>> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in > mind > >>> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a > >>> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph > >>> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to > >>> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) > >>> > >>> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva > >>> De > >>> > >>> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > appreciate > >>> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, > >>> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG > meeting > >>> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. > >>> > >>> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > integral > >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible > >>> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > >>> participation. > >>> > >>> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > >>> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all > >>> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. > >>> > >>> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > >>> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > >>> > >>> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > >>> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live > >>> transcript. > >>> > >>> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > >>> than one function. > >>> > >>> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, > and > >>> work together to bring them about: > >>> > >>> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > participants > >>> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an > >>> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > >>> > >>> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > bandwidth > >>> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance > >>> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. > >>> > >>> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting > >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. > >>> > >>> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > meetings, > >>> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage > >>> through RP that will be available. > >>> > >>> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation > >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, > and > >>> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical > >>> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). > >>> > >>> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > >>> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > >>> > >>> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. > >>> > >>> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well > >>> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the > >>> meeting > >>> > >>> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > >>> presentations access through RP. > >>> > >>> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society > >>> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and > to > >>> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been > highlighted > >>> to ensure improved remote participation processes. > >>> > >>> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > meetings, > >>> and who wish to do so from a remote location. > >>> > >>> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. > >>> > >>> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation > a > >>> reality. > >>> > >>> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is > extremely > >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > >>> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > >>> countries could access the IGF. > >>> > >>> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > culture > >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > >>> methodology. > >>> > >>> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as > well > >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a > >>> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > >>> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to > >>> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. > >>> > >>> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > >>> also include the following:- > >>> > >>> · Outreach; > >>> > >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > >>> > >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF > in > >>> a series of strategic roll out; > >>> > >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can > >>> be better involved in the remote hubs etc > >>> > >>> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > >>> . > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, > >>> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the > >>> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as > >>> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the > >>> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for > >>> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. > >>> > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > >>> > >>> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC > >>> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi > >>> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue > >>> on how we can actively contribute in this area. > >>> > >>> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you > >>> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied > >>> the text below. > >>> > >>> Warm Regards, > >>> Sala > >>> > >>> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 > >>> > >>> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial > >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > >>> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > >>> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, > >>> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened > to > >>> observers. > >>> > >>> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral > >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > >>> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without > >>> effective remote participation. > >>> > >>> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team > >>> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. > >>> > >>> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred > >>> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote > >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to > >>> live transcript. > >>> > >>> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to > >>> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > >>> and not just the Main Sessions. > >>> > >>> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving > >>> more than one function. > >>> > >>> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider > >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > itself, > >>> and work together to bring them about: > >>> > >>> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > >>> participants through planning meetings to give online and > >>> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and > >>> contribute to meetings. > >>> > >>> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > >>> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with > >>> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from > >>> offline participants. > >>> > >>> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > >>> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting > >>> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. > >>> > >>> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > >>> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the > >>> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. > >>> > >>> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation > >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the > same > >>> time, and are responsible for interactions between the > >>> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair > and > >>> the remote participants). > >>> > >>> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both > for > >>> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the > >>> meeting remotely. > >>> > >>> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. > >>> > >>> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, > as > >>> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of > >>> coverage of the meeting > >>> > >>> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > >>> interactive presentations access through RP. > >>> > >>> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that > has > >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > >>> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > >>> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical > >>> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote > >>> participation processes. > >>> > >>> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face > >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all > stakeholders > >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > >>> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. > >>> > >>> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and > >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. > >>> > >>> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote > >>> participation a reality. > >>> > >>> There are regions around the world where transportation is > extremely > >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries > >>> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > >>> these countries could access the IGF. > >>> > >>> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > culture > >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > >>> methodology. > >>> > >>> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as > well > >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to > maintain > >>> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should > >>> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > >>> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote > participation. > >>> > >>> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should > >>> also include the following:- > >>> > >>> · Outreach; > >>> > >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > >>> > >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > >>> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; > >>> > >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > >>> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc > >>> > >>> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF > 2011 > >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles > >>> . > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry > >>> >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- > 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org > >>> >, > >>> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra > >>> > > writes > >>> > >>> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - > >>> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat > >>> and/or Google > >>> > >>> > >>> Do they have a product which competes with the current market > >>> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something > >>> which works, of course - historically their tools have been > >>> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or > >>> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the > >>> battle. > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To 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 > >>> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Wed Feb 22 10:39:30 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:39:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> <4F4500D7.40107@apc.org> Message-ID: The following is the draft text, which received several changes which I don't have at hand [yet] We will have the opportunity to review this before making all final, but we are also under heavy time pressure - less than two hours to go... izumi ---- - Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. While remote participation has improved, in particular through remote moderators and hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas: - The Secretariat should work together to ensure the availability of adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators. - Chairs and moderators should give remote and onsite participants equal recognition and the opportunity to participate. - Low bandwidth connections to remote participation tools should be accommodated; - Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be fostered by ensuring online-meeting platforms interface with onsite interpretation; - Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live transcripts, should be institutionalised. Such mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, but also to non-native English speakers, and people with hearing and visual impairments, whether they are onsite or not. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Wed Feb 22 10:41:52 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: <9A0C26DC-1587-4721-8646-AF541022DA2A@apc.org> References: <9A0C26DC-1587-4721-8646-AF541022DA2A@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F450CC0.8010502@communisphere.com> All, The NomCom has been discussing _adding APC names_ to the list to be submitted, and _not subtracting_ those whom we had already selected, agreeing this would be unkind and unfair. If this agreeable, let us know. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, > > Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the > IGC NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we > regret that the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC > in the first phase of the process, we would rather not have the > process reopened as this is not fair to the current list of > nominees. We have submitted our names directly to the > Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its procedures in > the future. > > Best, > > Valeria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 10:49:55 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:49:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> <4F4500D7.40107@apc.org> Message-ID: Ginger, We included as much as possible about RP, but time is very tight. The meeting needs to be finished in 2 hours, so it was impossible to go into details. If you take a look at the text Anriette posted, you will see it covers many important points. Is drew inspiration from the summary of last year's workshop you posted, from IGC's statement and from previous discussions in the group. I think it is comprehensive and it is up to the community to push for the recommendations to gain substance and further details. The only part I missed was a clear statement that related funding and RP. Effective remote participation requires stable and predictable funding to cover remote participation management and technical expenses. It should not rely solely on voluntary work and technical and human resources need to be secured by the secretariat and the host. But some people in the room understood that stable funding for the IGF already covers stable funding for RP and this suggestion was deleted altogether. I frankly disagree, because we know that funding for IGF has always been secured in one way or another, but it was never sufficient for RP. But anyway, CS in the WG is doing what is possible to cover the main points regarding RP. Marília On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Anriette, Izumi, points for consideration/inclusion: > > Are there existing guidelines or requirements for IGF meetings and > planning meetings? If so, is it possible to include RP as part of the > required infrastructure? > > Is it appropriate to include the need for chair/moderator/participant/hub > organizer awareness building and training activities? > > Shouldn't remote hubs be specifically stipulated as part of the RP > activities? > > Can we stipulate that remote participants should be allowed to register > and appear on the list of attendees to meetings? > > Thanks! > Cheers, > Ginger > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > > On 22 February 2012 10:21, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> We will have a chance to look at the final text and decide whether it is >> clear enough. Here it is in its current form: >> >> >> Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. While remote >> participation has improved, in particular through remote moderators and >> hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas: >> >> - The Secretariat should continue to ensure the availability of >> adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators. >> >> - Chairs and moderators should give remote and onsite participants >> equal recognition and the opportunity to participate. >> >> - Low bandwidth connections to remote participation tools should be >> accommodated; >> >> - Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be fostered by >> ensuring online-meeting platforms interface with onsite interpretation; >> >> - Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live >> transcripts, should be kept as an integral part of the IGF. Such >> mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, but also to >> non-native English speakers, and people with hearing and visual >> impairments, whether they are onsite or not. >> On 22/02/12 16:35, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> >> > Thank you Ginger for your very timely online intervention! >> > We were almost finishing the part on Remote Participation, and then >> > I saw your following post and made some additional comment followed >> > by Anriette, and Markus sort of agreed to offer additional language >> > to recognize the value of the works of moderators such as Ginger and >> > Marilia, among others. >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > >> > 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque : >> >> Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all, >> >> >> >> I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working >> group, but >> >> not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views. >> >> >> >> I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely >> >> important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the >> other >> >> IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for >> RP, >> >> including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is >> >> indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as >> an >> >> integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes >> >> suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the >> >> presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a >> >> volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot >> remember... and >> >> others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the >> RPWG in >> >> formal IGF meetings. >> >> >> >> I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to >> >> implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the >> concern >> >> about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room >> >> difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an >> >> institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet >> recognized as >> >> such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and >> appalled by >> >> the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred >> >> precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting >> process. RP >> >> is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote >> >> moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it >> work. >> >> >> >> Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the >> on >> >> site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the >> chair >> >> tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling >> factors in >> >> the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a >> >> required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is >> >> indispensable. >> >> >> >> The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding >> for >> >> attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to >> collaborate on >> >> site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double roles >> during my >> >> term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most part, we >> are >> >> self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had some >> funding >> >> from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host country and >> IGF >> >> secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, equipment) at the >> >> meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter nowadays. >> >> >> >> The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a >> dynamic >> >> coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on >> practical >> >> implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing and >> happy to >> >> collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training materials, >> >> elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs. >> >> >> >> We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy >> to the >> >> IGC list as well for your feedback. >> >> >> >> Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote >> >> Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on >> the IGF >> >> RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given >> important >> >> impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going! >> >> >> >> Saludos, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is >> >>> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for >> RP. >> >>> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should >> prepare >> >>> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group >> >>> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the >> limitations. >> >>> >> >>> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, >> where >> >>> he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent >> helps), be >> >>> aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit >> >>> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": >> assertive >> >>> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not >> >>> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, >> ...and the >> >>> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience >> helps. >> >>> Ultimately, he has to be credible. >> >>> >> >>> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm >> >>> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. >> It is >> >>> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train >> chairs >> >>> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). >> >>> >> >>> What can we do for IGF chairs? >> >>> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic >> >>> expectations about their effectiveness >> >>> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good >> examples, >> >>> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF >> meeting, >> >>> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, >> introduced >> >>> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! >> >>> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about >> the >> >>> role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time >> management). >> >>> >> >>> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes >> in >> >>> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 >> years. >> >>> Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made this >> >>> possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people >> >>> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at >> every >> >>> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and >> successful. >> >>> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not >> work well, >> >>> but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF >> secretariat >> >>> and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF RPWG >> started >> >>> with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, >> they >> >>> discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to participate, >> they >> >>> liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat work behind the >> >>> scenes.... >> >>> >> >>> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know >> that >> >>> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should >> speak out >> >>> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their >> >>> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize >> enough the >> >>> great success of RP and need to give it another push without making >> it too >> >>> formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 needs mix of >> recognition, >> >>> funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work which is highly >> >>> professional) and the ownership of the IGF community. >> >>> >> >>> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on >> >>> Anriette's idea for guidelines..... >> >>> >> >>> Regards, Jovan >> >>> >> >>> Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The latest from Diplo: Learn about Internet governance and ICT >> policy: >> >>> enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> (more >> >>> info). >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi all >> >>> >> >>> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last >> week >> >>> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a >> >>> central role. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: >> >>> >> >>> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >>> >> >>> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate >> >>> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote >> >>> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present >> is >> >>> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them >> >>> to participate. >> >>> >> >>> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget >> >>> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance >> >>> for the additional expense involved. >> >>> >> >>> Anriette >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Dear Sala and everyone, >> >>> >> >>> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth >> >>> paragraph to follow the second - see below. >> >>> >> >>> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have >> remote >> >>> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in >> mind >> >>> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a >> >>> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at >> paragraph >> >>> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that >> to >> >>> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) >> >>> >> >>> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva >> >>> De >> >>> >> >>> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> appreciate >> >>> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, >> >>> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG >> meeting >> >>> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >> >>> >> >>> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an >> integral >> >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible >> >>> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >> >>> participation. >> >>> >> >>> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >> >>> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >> >>> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. >> >>> >> >>> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >> >>> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >>> >> >>> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >> >>> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third >> day, >> >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live >> >>> transcript. >> >>> >> >>> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >> >>> than one function. >> >>> >> >>> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >> >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, >> and >> >>> work together to bring them about: >> >>> >> >>> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >> participants >> >>> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >> >>> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >> >>> >> >>> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> bandwidth >> >>> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance >> >>> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. >> >>> >> >>> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >>> >> >>> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >> meetings, >> >>> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >> >>> through RP that will be available. >> >>> >> >>> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, >> and >> >>> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical >> >>> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). >> >>> >> >>> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >> >>> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> >>> >> >>> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >>> >> >>> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as >> well >> >>> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the >> >>> meeting >> >>> >> >>> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> >>> presentations access through RP. >> >>> >> >>> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >> >>> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and >> to >> >>> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been >> highlighted >> >>> to ensure improved remote participation processes. >> >>> >> >>> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >> >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >> meetings, >> >>> and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >>> >> >>> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >>> >> >>> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >> participation a >> >>> reality. >> >>> >> >>> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is >> extremely >> >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries >> and >> >>> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >> >>> countries could access the IGF. >> >>> >> >>> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF >> culture >> >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> >>> methodology. >> >>> >> >>> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as >> well >> >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a >> >>> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >> >>> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >> >>> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> >>> >> >>> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> >>> also include the following:- >> >>> >> >>> · Outreach; >> >>> >> >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >>> >> >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF >> in >> >>> a series of strategic roll out; >> >>> >> >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments >> can >> >>> be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >>> >> >>> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >> >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> >>> . >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> > >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Dear All, >> >>> >> >>> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, >> >>> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the >> >>> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as >> >>> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the >> >>> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for >> >>> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. >> >>> >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >>> >> >>> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC >> >>> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi >> >>> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue >> >>> on how we can actively contribute in this area. >> >>> >> >>> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you >> >>> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied >> >>> the text below. >> >>> >> >>> Warm Regards, >> >>> Sala >> >>> >> >>> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >>> >> >>> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> >>> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >> >>> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, >> >>> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened >> to >> >>> observers. >> >>> >> >>> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral >> >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >> >>> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without >> >>> effective remote participation. >> >>> >> >>> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team >> >>> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >>> >> >>> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >> occurred >> >>> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to >> >>> live transcript. >> >>> >> >>> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host >> to >> >>> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >> sessions >> >>> and not just the Main Sessions. >> >>> >> >>> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving >> >>> more than one function. >> >>> >> >>> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to >> consider >> >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF >> itself, >> >>> and work together to bring them about: >> >>> >> >>> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >> >>> participants through planning meetings to give online and >> >>> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and >> >>> contribute to meetings. >> >>> >> >>> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> >>> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with >> >>> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from >> >>> offline participants. >> >>> >> >>> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >> >>> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting >> >>> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >>> >> >>> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >> >>> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the >> >>> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. >> >>> >> >>> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the >> same >> >>> time, and are responsible for interactions between the >> >>> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair >> and >> >>> the remote participants). >> >>> >> >>> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both >> for >> >>> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the >> >>> meeting remotely. >> >>> >> >>> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving >> remote >> >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >>> >> >>> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, >> as >> >>> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of >> >>> coverage of the meeting >> >>> >> >>> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >> >>> interactive presentations access through RP. >> >>> >> >>> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that >> has >> >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and >> Civil >> >>> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >> >>> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical >> >>> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved >> remote >> >>> participation processes. >> >>> >> >>> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all >> stakeholders >> >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >> >>> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >>> >> >>> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >>> >> >>> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >> >>> participation a reality. >> >>> >> >>> There are regions around the world where transportation is >> extremely >> >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 >> countries >> >>> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of >> >>> these countries could access the IGF. >> >>> >> >>> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF >> culture >> >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> >>> methodology. >> >>> >> >>> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as >> well >> >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply >> and >> >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to >> maintain >> >>> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats >> should >> >>> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >> >>> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote >> participation. >> >>> >> >>> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> >>> also include the following:- >> >>> >> >>> · Outreach; >> >>> >> >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >>> >> >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the >> >>> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; >> >>> >> >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and >> governments >> >>> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >>> >> >>> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF >> 2011 >> >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> >>> . >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry >> >>> > >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- >> 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org >> >>> > >>, >> >>> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra >> >>> > >> writes >> >>> >> >>> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - >> >>> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat >> >>> and/or Google >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Do they have a product which competes with the current market >> >>> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something >> >>> which works, of course - historically their tools have been >> >>> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or >> >>> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half >> the >> >>> battle. >> >>> -- >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>> >> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Wed Feb 22 10:57:05 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:57:05 -0200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> <4F4500D7.40107@apc.org> Message-ID: Sorry, I meant" Therefore, actors from developing countries generally do not give RP the importance it deserves" and this happens for strategic political reasons, not bc it is not important to them. On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > The problem with recognizing that RP is an integral part of the IGF is the > following, in my view: > > a) Actors who lack funding to attend meetings make use of RP features are > the ones who benefit the most from them. But there is a fear among actors > (sometimes justifiable) that RP will be politically used as a solution to > the problems related to participation, including as an argument to avoid > increasing funding for physical attendance. Therefore, actors from > developing countries generally do give RP the importance it deserves. > > b) Actors who do attend the IGF and have a legitimate desire to depict the > IGF as inclusive and sometimes they overestimate the current capacity of RP > to include people. The intention is good, but they are actually preventing > some important self-criticism. And, as many times they are not the ones to > really use it, they do not feel the necessity of RP on their own skin. > > RP is then caught in the cross-fire among this groups and, therefore, the > arguments to move it forward are always winding and not as direct and > concrete as they could be. > > Marília > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> We will have a chance to look at the final text and decide whether it is >> clear enough. Here it is in its current form: >> >> >> Remote participation is an integral part of the IGF. While remote >> participation has improved, in particular through remote moderators and >> hubs, there is still room for improvement in the following areas: >> >> - The Secretariat should continue to ensure the availability of >> adequate technical and human resources, including remote moderators. >> >> - Chairs and moderators should give remote and onsite participants >> equal recognition and the opportunity to participate. >> >> - Low bandwidth connections to remote participation tools should be >> accommodated; >> >> - Linguistic diversity in remote participation should be fostered by >> ensuring online-meeting platforms interface with onsite interpretation; >> >> - Mechanisms that facilitate remote participation, such as live >> transcripts, should be kept as an integral part of the IGF. Such >> mechanisms are invaluable not only to remote participants, but also to >> non-native English speakers, and people with hearing and visual >> impairments, whether they are onsite or not. >> On 22/02/12 16:35, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> >> > Thank you Ginger for your very timely online intervention! >> > We were almost finishing the part on Remote Participation, and then >> > I saw your following post and made some additional comment followed >> > by Anriette, and Markus sort of agreed to offer additional language >> > to recognize the value of the works of moderators such as Ginger and >> > Marilia, among others. >> > >> > izumi >> > >> > >> > 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque : >> >> Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all, >> >> >> >> I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working >> group, but >> >> not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views. >> >> >> >> I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely >> >> important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the >> other >> >> IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for >> RP, >> >> including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is >> >> indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as >> an >> >> integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes >> >> suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the >> >> presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a >> >> volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot >> remember... and >> >> others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the >> RPWG in >> >> formal IGF meetings. >> >> >> >> I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to >> >> implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the >> concern >> >> about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room >> >> difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an >> >> institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet >> recognized as >> >> such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and >> appalled by >> >> the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred >> >> precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting >> process. RP >> >> is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote >> >> moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it >> work. >> >> >> >> Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the >> on >> >> site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the >> chair >> >> tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling >> factors in >> >> the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a >> >> required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is >> >> indispensable. >> >> >> >> The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding >> for >> >> attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to >> collaborate on >> >> site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double roles >> during my >> >> term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most part, we >> are >> >> self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had some >> funding >> >> from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host country and >> IGF >> >> secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, equipment) at the >> >> meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter nowadays. >> >> >> >> The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a >> dynamic >> >> coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on >> practical >> >> implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing and >> happy to >> >> collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training materials, >> >> elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs. >> >> >> >> We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy >> to the >> >> IGC list as well for your feedback. >> >> >> >> Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote >> >> Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on >> the IGF >> >> RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given >> important >> >> impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going! >> >> >> >> Saludos, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is >> >>> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for >> RP. >> >>> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should >> prepare >> >>> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group >> >>> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the >> limitations. >> >>> >> >>> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, >> where >> >>> he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent >> helps), be >> >>> aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit >> >>> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": >> assertive >> >>> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not >> >>> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, >> ...and the >> >>> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience >> helps. >> >>> Ultimately, he has to be credible. >> >>> >> >>> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm >> >>> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. >> It is >> >>> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train >> chairs >> >>> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). >> >>> >> >>> What can we do for IGF chairs? >> >>> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic >> >>> expectations about their effectiveness >> >>> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good >> examples, >> >>> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF >> meeting, >> >>> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, >> introduced >> >>> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! >> >>> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about >> the >> >>> role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time >> management). >> >>> >> >>> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes >> in >> >>> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 >> years. >> >>> Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made this >> >>> possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people >> >>> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at >> every >> >>> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and >> successful. >> >>> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not >> work well, >> >>> but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF >> secretariat >> >>> and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF RPWG >> started >> >>> with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, >> they >> >>> discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to participate, >> they >> >>> liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat work behind the >> >>> scenes.... >> >>> >> >>> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know >> that >> >>> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should >> speak out >> >>> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their >> >>> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize >> enough the >> >>> great success of RP and need to give it another push without making >> it too >> >>> formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 needs mix of >> recognition, >> >>> funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work which is highly >> >>> professional) and the ownership of the IGF community. >> >>> >> >>> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on >> >>> Anriette's idea for guidelines..... >> >>> >> >>> Regards, Jovan >> >>> >> >>> Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The latest from Diplo: Learn about Internet governance and ICT >> policy: >> >>> enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> (more >> >>> info). >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi all >> >>> >> >>> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last >> week >> >>> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a >> >>> central role. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: >> >>> >> >>> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >>> >> >>> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate >> >>> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote >> >>> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present >> is >> >>> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them >> >>> to participate. >> >>> >> >>> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget >> >>> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance >> >>> for the additional expense involved. >> >>> >> >>> Anriette >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Dear Sala and everyone, >> >>> >> >>> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth >> >>> paragraph to follow the second - see below. >> >>> >> >>> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have >> remote >> >>> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in >> mind >> >>> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a >> >>> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at >> paragraph >> >>> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that >> to >> >>> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) >> >>> >> >>> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva >> >>> De >> >>> >> >>> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> appreciate >> >>> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, >> >>> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG >> meeting >> >>> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >> >>> >> >>> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an >> integral >> >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible >> >>> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >> >>> participation. >> >>> >> >>> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >> >>> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >> >>> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. >> >>> >> >>> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >> >>> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >>> >> >>> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >> >>> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third >> day, >> >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live >> >>> transcript. >> >>> >> >>> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >> >>> than one function. >> >>> >> >>> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >> >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, >> and >> >>> work together to bring them about: >> >>> >> >>> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >> participants >> >>> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >> >>> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >> >>> >> >>> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> bandwidth >> >>> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance >> >>> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. >> >>> >> >>> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >> >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >>> >> >>> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >> meetings, >> >>> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >> >>> through RP that will be available. >> >>> >> >>> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, >> and >> >>> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical >> >>> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). >> >>> >> >>> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >> >>> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> >>> >> >>> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >>> >> >>> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as >> well >> >>> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the >> >>> meeting >> >>> >> >>> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> >>> presentations access through RP. >> >>> >> >>> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >> >>> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and >> to >> >>> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been >> highlighted >> >>> to ensure improved remote participation processes. >> >>> >> >>> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >> >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >> meetings, >> >>> and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >>> >> >>> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >>> >> >>> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >> participation a >> >>> reality. >> >>> >> >>> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is >> extremely >> >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries >> and >> >>> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >> >>> countries could access the IGF. >> >>> >> >>> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF >> culture >> >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> >>> methodology. >> >>> >> >>> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as >> well >> >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a >> >>> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >> >>> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >> >>> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> >>> >> >>> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> >>> also include the following:- >> >>> >> >>> · Outreach; >> >>> >> >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >>> >> >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF >> in >> >>> a series of strategic roll out; >> >>> >> >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments >> can >> >>> be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >>> >> >>> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >> >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> >>> . >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> > >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Dear All, >> >>> >> >>> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, >> >>> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the >> >>> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as >> >>> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the >> >>> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for >> >>> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. >> >>> >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >>> >> >>> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC >> >>> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi >> >>> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue >> >>> on how we can actively contribute in this area. >> >>> >> >>> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you >> >>> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied >> >>> the text below. >> >>> >> >>> Warm Regards, >> >>> Sala >> >>> >> >>> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >> >>> >> >>> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >> >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> >>> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >> >>> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, >> >>> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened >> to >> >>> observers. >> >>> >> >>> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral >> >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >> >>> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without >> >>> effective remote participation. >> >>> >> >>> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team >> >>> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >> >>> >> >>> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >> occurred >> >>> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >> >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to >> >>> live transcript. >> >>> >> >>> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host >> to >> >>> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >> sessions >> >>> and not just the Main Sessions. >> >>> >> >>> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving >> >>> more than one function. >> >>> >> >>> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to >> consider >> >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF >> itself, >> >>> and work together to bring them about: >> >>> >> >>> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >> >>> participants through planning meetings to give online and >> >>> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and >> >>> contribute to meetings. >> >>> >> >>> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> >>> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with >> >>> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from >> >>> offline participants. >> >>> >> >>> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >> >>> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting >> >>> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. >> >>> >> >>> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >> >>> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the >> >>> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. >> >>> >> >>> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the >> same >> >>> time, and are responsible for interactions between the >> >>> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair >> and >> >>> the remote participants). >> >>> >> >>> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both >> for >> >>> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the >> >>> meeting remotely. >> >>> >> >>> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving >> remote >> >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> >>> >> >>> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, >> as >> >>> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of >> >>> coverage of the meeting >> >>> >> >>> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >> >>> interactive presentations access through RP. >> >>> >> >>> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that >> has >> >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and >> Civil >> >>> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >> >>> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical >> >>> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved >> remote >> >>> participation processes. >> >>> >> >>> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >> >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all >> stakeholders >> >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >> >>> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. >> >>> >> >>> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >> >>> >> >>> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >> >>> participation a reality. >> >>> >> >>> There are regions around the world where transportation is >> extremely >> >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 >> countries >> >>> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of >> >>> these countries could access the IGF. >> >>> >> >>> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF >> culture >> >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> >>> methodology. >> >>> >> >>> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as >> well >> >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply >> and >> >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to >> maintain >> >>> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats >> should >> >>> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >> >>> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote >> participation. >> >>> >> >>> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >> >>> also include the following:- >> >>> >> >>> · Outreach; >> >>> >> >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> >>> >> >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the >> >>> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; >> >>> >> >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and >> governments >> >>> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc >> >>> >> >>> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF >> 2011 >> >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >> >>> . >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry >> >>> > >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- >> 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org >> >>> > >>, >> >>> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra >> >>> > >> writes >> >>> >> >>> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - >> >>> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat >> >>> and/or Google >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Do they have a product which competes with the current market >> >>> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something >> >>> which works, of course - historically their tools have been >> >>> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or >> >>> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half >> the >> >>> battle. >> >>> -- >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>> >> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To 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 >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 renate.bloem at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 11:17:05 2012 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:17:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] The UN Threat to Internet Freedom Message-ID: <8498B74D07C74CA99C6C4677F50804B7@PortableRenateBloem> The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom By Robert M. McDowell, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission The Wall Street Journal - 21 February 2012 Renate Bloem Main Representative Head of Civicus UN Office Geneva 11, Avenue de la Paix, CH-1202 Geneva Tel:/Fax ++41 22 733 3435 Mobile : +41 76 346 2310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com skype: Renate.Bloem CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, Southdale 2135, JHB, South Africa www.civicus.org 2012 CIVICUS World Assembly – Early Bird Registration Now Open. Join us to Define a New Social Contract! 3-7 September in Montreal, Canada. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Wed Feb 22 11:33:23 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:33:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: <4F450CC0.8010502@communisphere.com> References: <9A0C26DC-1587-4721-8646-AF541022DA2A@apc.org> <4F450CC0.8010502@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear Thomas, Thanks for the explanation and the disposition to include APC's suggested names. However, we would prefer not to be part of this second phase of the process. Best, Valeria On 22/02/2012, at 10:41, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > All, > > The NomCom has been discussing adding APC names to the list to be > submitted, and not subtracting those whom we had already selected, > agreeing this would be unkind and unfair. > > If this agreeable, let us know. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >> >> Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, >> >> Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the >> IGC NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while >> we regret that the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by >> the APC in the first phase of the process, we would rather not have >> the process reopened as this is not fair to the current list of >> nominees. We have submitted our names directly to the >> Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its procedures in >> the future. >> >> Best, >> >> Valeria > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 22 13:15:40 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:15:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Dear Deirdre, As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society component of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. If you could please send it in a word document that would be super helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Feb 22 13:57:33 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:57:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cybersecurity: Speech Given at the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Washington D.C Message-ID: <8402467788831975907@unknownmsgid> Wanted to share with the list the great comments given by Sally Wentworth at a Cybersecurity reception at the Dutch Embassy in Washington, DC. Regards Robert --- http://internetsociety.org/cybersecurity-speech-given-embassy-kingdom-netherlands-washington-dc Cybersecurity: Speech Given at the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Washington D.C Event Speaker: Sally Shipman Wentworth Thanks Martijn for that introduction, and thanks to Ambassador Jones-Bos and to the Netherlands Office for Science and Technology for inviting me to speak. Good evening. Since so many of you have spent today talking about how you might collaborate on cybersecurity, and about specific technical projects you may be working on, I thought I'd take a step back and provide a perspective on why cybersecurity is such a huge issue, why the stakes are so high and the answers so difficult. Today, more than two billion people around the world are online. That's two billion people who are relying on the Internet to be a trusted place to get and share information. Some subset of those two billion are using the Internet to buy real or digital goods, collaborate with business partners, and handle the tasks of everyday life, like paying their bills. Yet many people still worry about the security of their online transactions and whether their privacy is being protected. The endless stream of news stories about cyber attacks contributes to these concerns. Tonight, I'll lay out pieces of the cybersecurity puzzle, and put them in context of the Internet's fundamental principles. I'll end by offering a framework for policymaking that I believe will be useful in preserving those principles. *I'll start with a basic question. What is cybersecurity?* If you ask a friend or neighbor, you'll get one answer—maybe having to do with concerns over their credit card data being stolen or having gone too far in a Facebook posting that could be read by a prospective employer. If you ask parents, they will tell you they worry about what a child might be looking at, or the possibility that the child is the victim of cyber-bullying or on the receiving end of "sext" messages. This is a view of the end user, but it’s just one perspective. For businesses, cybersecurity has other implications— companies all need to safeguard customer information, protect commercial data, or prevent intrusions and damage to their corporate networks. Yet the business perspective of cybersecurity is far from uniform; companies vary widely in their specific needs, expectations, and sophistication. A small business may not be concerned about the same things that General Electric is concerned about, and the auto industry may not have the same cybersecurity requirements as a health care provider that relies on e-health records. And then there is the government perspective, which has to take into account the concerns of citizens and businesses while also dealing with any national security threats that an Internet attack might pose. With many government services and national physical infrastructures increasingly tied to the Internet, the disruptive potential of a cyber attack is significant. The Minister reminded us of this, this morning, with his recounting of the details of last summer's Diginotar crisis in the Netherlands. Governments' approaches to cybersecurity, like industries, aren't always the same. Among other things, they vary with the country's geographic location and economic development. For example there are differences between developed and developing countries in how they address cybersecurity. Those of us who live in developed countries have gotten used to inexpensive bandwidth and relatively easy access to security software. Doesn't mean we always take advantage of it, but it's there. In many developing nations, unlimited access for a set fee isn't a given. Users often pay more as their use goes up, so things like spam imposes costs on people who can least afford it. Neither, in some cases, can they afford to download regular antivirus updates. In places where electricity is unreliable, an attempt to download new software can turn into a costly failure if the power shuts off. There are other important differences in emerging economies. People access the Internet through wireless services, and Internet users in these countries are much more likely to get on the Internet at a cybercafé or community access points like libraries. These modes of access are extremely important for people who might otherwise never be able to get online. But these modes of connecting have certain risks. Cybercafes can be especially problematic, because of the possibility that private information will be available to other users who sit down a few minutes later at the same computer. In Uganda, criminals took advantage of this, methodically recording online banking transactions made at cybercafés. For all of these reasons, a developing country is likely to have a different set of priorities when it comes to the Internet, than a developed nation like the U.S. or the Netherlands. While the U.S. or Netherlands might be most focused on securing advanced computing infrastructure or funding cybersecurity R&D, a developing nation might well be more concerned with developing the technical and policy capacity to deal with online fraud. Many developing countries lack the basic legislative frameworks to address cybercrime, particularly when the crime may not even originate in their countries. Which of these concerns should be the priority when it comes to our cybersecurity efforts and cybersecurity policy in general? For that matter, how do the diverse concerns of government match up against the security needs of citizens and businesses? I'm not sure that anyone can answer that question, and I certainly wouldn't want to have to prioritize among these stakeholders. They all have legitimate interests, and in many cases, the interests, though specific to them, are also intertwined. It is the legitimate claims of all of these stakeholder groups that explains why it is so difficult to reach consensus on how to define or address cybersecurity. That doesn’t mean we should throw up our arms in frustration. It just means we have to be smart about how we proceed. *Any framework for tackling cybersecurity needs to work back from an understanding of the different ways in which the Internet is valuable to its different stakeholders*. To practically everyone, the Internet has value as a communications tool and as an engine of economic growth. It also has value as an enabler of social and even political change. What are the principles of the Internet, the building blocks, that give it this flexibility and that we should be sure preserve as we try to develop the right cybersecurity policies? *There are some basic characteristics about the Internet that really matter: * *The first is the Internet’s global reach and integrity*. As an Internet user, I have to feel confident that all of the endpoints are connected--that when I type in www.rabobank.com, that’s actually the site I go to, and not somewhere else. It’s a little like the seal on a bottle of Tylenol, which reassures me that there has been no tampering with what’s inside. This integrity is partly a result of a technical specification called DNSSEC, which has been in the news a bit lately because of the impact that the SOPA legislation would have had on DNSSEC. I'll come back to SOPA in a few minutes. *The second core Internet principle is something we at the Internet Society call permission-less innovation*. Said another way, this is the ability of anyone to create a new service on the Internet without having to get approval from a governing body. Without thinking about this too long, any of us could come up with a long list of online services that might not exist if scientists and entrepreneurs needed to vet their ideas with, say, their local phone company, their national government or the United Nations. If Tim Berners-Lee had to ask for permission, would the World-Wide Web exist? Would the idea of a Web “spider” have been rejected, cutting off the development of Internet search services such as Google? Would Facebook have 850 million users and be headed for an IPO that could value it at $100 billion? How about Wikipedia and Twitter and Web mapping software and downloadable music and hundreds of other things we take for granted in our daily lives? *A third thing we must preserve is the accessibility of the Internet*. This goes farther than people’s being able to consume whatever legal content they want; it extends to their ability to contribute content, add a server, or attach a new network, as long as they follow the Internet's technical standards. *And the fourth thing to safeguard is the Internet’s spirit of collaboration *. In addressing Internet security issues, we must find a way to get all stakeholders involved, from users, to those of you in the Internet research community, to commercial companies, to policymakers. Solutions developed in isolation either don’t solve the problem or cause more harm than good. In some cases they can create significant problems that undermine the stability of the Internet. The last few months have furnished some clear examples of badly designed *policy "solutions"* that would impact these core Internet principles. Take SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, in the United States. SOPA took aim at a legitimate problem of the Internet—the theft of copyrighted material and trafficking in counterfeit goods. In practice, users who tried to access a site considered illegal under SOPA would have been redirected to a U.S. government Web page—perhaps one run by the Department of Homeland Security – or would not have reached any site at all. This policy would have compromised the implementation of the DNS security protocol, DNSSEC that I alluded to before. The policy would require ISPs to essentially hijack legitimate queries from users and redirect them to a site they didn’t ask for. It would cause people to constantly wonder if the website they were directed to was the same as the one they requested. This would have huge implications for Internet security. The other thing about SOPA is that it would have forced ISPs to block entire domains. Since a single domain can house many unrelated sites, this policy would have impacted all sorts of non-infringing sites. It was, in the end, legislation that would have done far more harm than good, and the Internet community, including my organization and I'm sure many of you here, voiced its disapproval. We were happy when Congress shelved the plan. Now, we have to turn our attention to the equally controversial ACTA, or anti-counterfeit trade agreement. ACTA is an international treaty whose basic purpose is to provide an international framework and standards for the enforcement of Intellectual Property online and to address the sale of counterfeiting goods via the Internet. As we did with SOPA, the Internet Society has gone on record criticizing ACTA, in particular for the secretive way in which this international accord was developed, with only two of the 11 negotiating texts made public. Like SOPA though, the most effective pushback appears to be happening at a grass-roots level, with protests in many parts of central and Eastern Europe. ACTA would allow countries to block traffic or content and would give them considerable latitude in defining acts of infringement. The ambiguity of the treaty’s language raises the specter of findings of infringement or counterfeiting being used as a pretext for limiting Internet freedom. The protestors have done a good job of making their voices heard: Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have all backed off their pledge to adopt the treaty—at least for now. The Netherlands did the same last week. It's encouraging to see governments getting the message and reconsidering policies that would undermine the Internet's principles. But it would be unrealistic to expect that all governments are going learn these lessons and stop trying to control this medium. Five months ago, China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan approached the U.N. with a proposal for an International Code of Conduct for Information Security. The proposal included a line about “curbing the dissemination of information" that undermines other countries’ "political, economic and social stability, as well as their spiritual and cultural environments.” >From the perspective of most of us in this room, that’s obviously too sweeping a guideline; it goes against the grain of the Internet. But it is part of the international context for addressing cybersecurity's challenges. We can't pretend it isn't out there. *Happily, there are goals related to cybersecurity that many countries already agree on*. An Internet security breach, after all, isn’t like a territorial crime, where the consequences are generally limited to the geographic area where it happens. Internet security problems have the potential to spread quickly and widely, something we first learned back in the late 1980s, with the release of the Morris worm that infected 6,000 defense, university and research computers. That was front-page news, at the time. There have been similar incidents in recent years, some reported and some not, that have caused policymakers everywhere to pay closer attention to network security and look for ways to cooperate across borders. In particular, many governments are looking to protect vulnerable groups, including children, from online threats and to find ways to empower them to protect themselves. Governments are eager to learn from the best cybersecurity practices of others. And no government should want a cyber criminal who launches an attack from their country to have a safe haven. Interpol has done some great work in tracking down online criminals. And there are other mechanisms that countries have that reflect their common interests in ensuring the Internet's safety. For instance, there are computer emergency readiness teams—CERT, for short—all over the world, coordinating their countries' efforts and sharing information when there are security incidents. Last year, when the White House released a document called the International Strategy for Cyberspace, it talked about the importance of getting international research communities “to take on next-generation challenges to cybersecurity.” The White House position paper also cited the “immediate and long-term benefit” of helping developing nations shore up their own cybersecurity capabilities. *Cooperation between developing and developed nations is already happening. *I was in Trinidad & Tobago last week, meeting with the Caribbean Telecom Union. This is the organization responsible for working with ICT Ministries all over the Caribbean to help them implement Internet-related policies. They have a small staff—four or five people—-highly qualified-and their priority this year is squarely on cybersecurity. Many Caribbean countries do not have the resources, technical expertise or capacity at the individual government level to forge cybersecurity policy on their own. Yet they don't want technology to pass them by. They want to be a part of the global information economy, but they know that this future depends on their ability to implement some level of cybersecurity. As a result, they are looking for private sector input and advice. They are eager to learn from governments like the U.S. and the Netherlands about what's working and what isn't. They are reaching out to the technical community for technical solutions. Their approach is practical. There are numerous other examples of international, multistakeholder cooperation on cybersecurity issues that are taking place within the OECD, APEC, the Internet Governance Forum, and the Organization of American States, just to name a few. So when I talk about information sharing and international cooperation, it isn't just a fancy construct. It's real; it's happening now. I'd like to close by discussing, more tactically, what we should be doing about cybersecurity. How should we approach it at a policy level? First, international cooperation -to the extent possible – is essential. The reason for this is clear. If an attack hits a retail company in London, and the perpetrator is in Sarajevo, the malware may have traversed computers in three or four other countries en route to its destination. That's a situation that requires cross-border cooperation. Cross-border cooperation is also valuable in situations that aren't as high pressure, for instance in avoiding duplication of effort in the development of security technologies or protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is a good example of collaborative technical standards development that is open to participation by any expert from around the world. The discussions that happened earlier today among you are another example of positive cooperation that should serve as a catalyst for further innovation. Second, any policies we come up with should be based on open technical standards. The Internet wouldn't have had the explosive success it has had if the software that has driven its growth weren't easily adaptable for other purposes on the network. Security solutions that are developed within expert communities—again, the IETF is an example—are more likely to be effective and scalable, and consistent with the Internet's basic principals. Third, the policies we come up with should be flexible enough to evolve over time. We know that the technology is going to change—that's a given. The solutions need to be responsive to new challenges. We don't want to develop a policy in 2012 that is outdated in 2013. Fourth, the policies need to be developed using a multi-stakeholder model. That means that effective policies can't be unilaterally created by government. They can't reflect a back-room deal worked out by industry leaders. They can't just be the brainchildren of engineers. All of these stakeholders must work together. Within this policy framework, we should not overlook a few critical values, namely basic privacy protections and freedom of speech. *Privacy protection* begins with better awareness and understanding by users of how their information will be collected, used and stored by those they interact with online. I consider myself an experienced online user, yet I struggle to understand the legalese in most online privacy agreements and often don't take the time to read them. If we want people to use the medium, they have to trust it. To trust it they need some basic understandings about what will happen to their personal information and confidence that their expectations will be met. *Freedom of speech* is also fundamental to the Internet for reasons that most of us in this room, coming from countries with long traditions of free personal expression, take for granted. People need to be able to share ideas and information and communicate freely; this is what makes the Internet powerful and allows people to innovate. If you institute a cybersecurity policy that disregards freedom of expression, you threaten one of the main things that make the Internet valuable. The bottom line is that the policies we put in place should not undo the good thing we've got. There's a temptation, in many situations relating to cybersecurity, to be reactive, especially if something has happened that has jeopardized the welfare of a child or compromised financial data, or resulted in major infrastructure damage. We have to remember that it isn't the Internet that does bad things, any more than it is the post office that does bad things or the telecommunications network or transportation system. People sometimes use these mechanisms to do bad things, but it's still people doing them. We shouldn't attack the medium in an effort to deter the crime. There is one other thing I'd like to add, which is always crucial to the development of good policy. And that is the willingness of those who are developing policy to truly listen to those affected by their decisions. One of the remarkable things about the Internet is how quickly it allows people to rally around a good idea, or discredit a bad one. Would it be a good idea to develop a cybersecurity technology or policy approach that choked off permission-less innovation? What if cyber policies resulted in an Internet that was carved up along national boundaries? We could create those things, but they would leave us with a radically diminished platform, one that far fewer people would want to use. I'm not even sure it would be the Internet. And that, we must not allow. Thanks for listening—and for being part of this crucial effort, at such an important time -Sally Wentworth, Dutch Embassy, Feb. 21 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 tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Wed Feb 22 14:21:57 2012 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:21:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329824861.6417.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329826933.13186.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Imran and others, I'm also uncomfortable if we frame 'Internet for Kids' as creating some sort of separate tightly filtered Internet. I would see the task of focussing on the Internet for Children much more as a question of ensuring there is positive content available to children in engaging online and making positive choices, rather than adults choosing to control children's and young people's access to information with filtered online spaces. I think a language of Children's Rights is useful here, and the ideas Imran suggest below, might fit into the proposal I put in the Human Rights thread for reframing 'Child Protection' as a 'Children's Rights' thread. Below is what I said in that thread about the value in taking a Children's Rights approach to these issues: "On the suggestion for (11) on 'Online child protection', I would really like to see this framed as 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision and Participation', rather than solely 'child protection', particularly as this is falling under a 'human rights' heading. I've written a bit on the justification for this at http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23226/ - but essentially, when we adopt narrow narratives of 'online child protection' we end up (a) neglecting children and young people's broader set of rights to be active participants on the web, and to safe and supportive online provision; and (b) we adopt counter-productive strategies which don't even serve the intended goals of keeping young people safe from harm online. " All the best Tim On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Fatima Cambronero < fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2012/2/21 McTim > >> On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> > Thanks Sala for your comments, >> > This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were >> discussing >> > that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing, >> > configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or >> using >> > the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we devise >> some >> > governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser to >> Kids >> > Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the confidence >> of >> > Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids. >> >> >> Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to >> Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate). >> > > > And what about their privacy? Do children have no Right to Privacy? > > From what age do children acquire the right to privacy? > > > > Fatima > > >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > *Fatima Cambronero* > Abogada-Argentina > Directora de Investigaciones > *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* > http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ > > *@facambronero* > > *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 22 14:27:07 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:27:07 +1200 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329824861.6417.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329826933.13186.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Tim Davies < tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: > Hello Imran and others, > > I'm also uncomfortable if we frame 'Internet for Kids' as creating some > sort of separate tightly filtered Internet. I would see the task of > focussing on the Internet for Children much more as a question of ensuring > there is positive content available to children in engaging online and > making positive choices, rather than adults choosing to control children's > and young people's access to information with filtered online spaces. > > Excellent point Tim. I like this approach. Perhaps if I could invite volunteers to work on consolidating the comments and themes that have surfaced so we can get some level of consensus. This is so we can prepare to send our thoughts. We will then put it to the list for a consensus call. I think a language of Children's Rights is useful here, and the ideas Imran > suggest below, might fit into the proposal I put in the Human Rights thread > for reframing 'Child Protection' as a 'Children's Rights' thread. Below is > what I said in that thread about the value in taking a Children's Rights > approach to these issues: > > "On the suggestion for (11) on 'Online child protection', I would really > like to see this framed as 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision and > Participation', rather than solely 'child protection', particularly as this > is falling under a 'human rights' heading. > > I've written a bit on the justification for this at > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23226/ - but essentially, when we adopt > narrow narratives of 'online child protection' we end up (a) neglecting > children and young people's broader set of rights to be active > participants on the web, and to safe and supportive online provision; and > (b) we adopt counter-productive strategies which don't even serve the > intended goals of keeping young people safe from harm online. " > > All the best > > Tim > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Fatima Cambronero < > fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> 2012/2/21 McTim >> >>> On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>> > Thanks Sala for your comments, >>> > This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were >>> discussing >>> > that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing, >>> > configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or >>> using >>> > the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we >>> devise some >>> > governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser to >>> Kids >>> > Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the confidence >>> of >>> > Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids. >>> >>> >>> Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to >>> Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate). >>> >> >> >> And what about their privacy? Do children have no Right to Privacy? >> >> From what age do children acquire the right to privacy? >> >> >> >> Fatima >> >> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Fatima Cambronero* >> Abogada-Argentina >> Directora de Investigaciones >> *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* >> http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ >> >> *@facambronero* >> >> *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - > #5381958. > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Feb 22 14:54:03 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:54:03 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: <4F450CC0.8010502@communisphere.com> Message-ID: All, As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the relevant UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, IGC is also supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people on this list would support such an action. (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn from the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that need further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC expressed support for the APC nominees. That¹s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and may be our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) Ian Peter From: Thomas Lowenhaupt Reply-To: , Thomas Lowenhaupt Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 To: Valeria Betancourt Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , , Jacqueline Morris , shaila mistry , Anriette Esterhuysen , Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application All, The NomCom has been discussing adding APC names to the list to be submitted, and not subtracting those whom we had already selected, agreeing this would be unkind and unfair. If this agreeable, let us know. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > > Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom,  > > > > > > > Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC NomCom > for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret that the > NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first phase of > the process, we would rather not have the process reopened as this is not fair > to the current list of nominees.  We have submitted our names directly to the > Secretariat.  We do hope that the IGC can clarify its procedures in the > future. > > > > > Best,  > > > > > Valeria  > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Wed Feb 22 15:10:29 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:10:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: CSTD WG on IGF - Day 3 #2 Message-ID: The discussion around Point D. Broadening participation just finished at 17:40, and now entering into Point E. Linking IGF. It took much more time than estimated for Point D. We are all getting tired, mentally, but still trying to keep the good spirit, to reach consensus, and proceed to finish. The sense of the room is in delicate balance, not trying to open up can of worms, not to lose the accomplishment of the three days of work this time and all previous four meetings. At 8:30 pm, we finished the Point E. and Chair suggested to finish the meeting today. The remaining work will be done mostly online, e-mail based. The chair clarified that we will not bring in new items, works will be mostly editorial work, and try to remove reserved text in [ ] s. The Final document will consist of two parts, list of recommendations as agreed, and a separate Chair's Report, which will be submitted to CSTD and to General Assembly, via ECOSOC. the substance of recommendations and Chair's Report will not be changed, though CSTD and/or ECOSOC could make resolutions on top of the report. Chair also assured that final adaptation will be taken in some form of formal style. The ending remarks of members are quite positive. The target to complete is first week of March, given documentation/translation process of CSTD. Final approval be in writing - email - Chair suggested, and we agreed. IT is suggested and agreed that Chair will offer compromise text and then we will be asked to say yes or no etc. South Africa proposed to applause the Chair!1 Now it is 21:10, Chair closed the meeting. izumi -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 22 15:11:43 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: References: <4F450CC0.8010502@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear All, The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without interference from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add names must be their decision solely and this is to preserve some level of independence. Once the NomCom makes the selection, the recommendations are then put forward by the IGC through the coordinators the Secretariat. In this case, one of the Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself from dealing with this administrative issue. For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list of Nominees would be improper unless the APC list was within the basket of nominees that they were considering and decide on their own accord that they accept the candidates and list them with other nominees. In this instance, APC has withdrawn its list of candidates from the NomCom and the NomCom should only review the list of candidates within its current basket. Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways we can improve the processes etc. Kind Regards, On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > All, > > As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the > relevant UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, > IGC is also supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people > on this list would support such an action. > > (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn > from the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that > need further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC expressed > support for the APC nominees. That’s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and > may be our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) > > > Ian Peter > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *Thomas Lowenhaupt > *Reply-To: *, Thomas Lowenhaupt < > toml at communisphere.com> > *Date: *Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 > *To: *Valeria Betancourt > *Cc: *"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>, , > Jacqueline Morris , shaila mistry < > shailam at yahoo.com>, Anriette Esterhuysen , < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > *Subject: *[governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application > > > All, > > The NomCom has been discussing *adding APC names* to the list to be > submitted, and *not subtracting* those whom we had already selected, > agreeing this would be unkind and unfair. > > If this agreeable, let us know. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > > > Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, > > > > > > > Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC > NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret > that the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the > first phase of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened > as this is not fair to the current list of nominees. We have submitted our > names directly to the Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its > procedures in the future. > > > > > Best, > > > > > Valeria > > > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 22 15:19:20 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:19:20 +0100 Subject: RES: [governance] Cybersecurity: Speech Given at the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Washington D.C In-Reply-To: <8402467788831975907@unknownmsgid> References: <8402467788831975907@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <012401ccf19f$49941f80$dcbc5e80$@uol.com.br> Thank you Robert! I will share with colleagues here. De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Robert Guerra Enviada em: quarta-feira, 22 de fevereiro de 2012 19:58 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: [governance] Cybersecurity: Speech Given at the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Washington D.C Wanted to share with the list the great comments given by Sally Wentworth at a Cybersecurity reception at the Dutch Embassy in Washington, DC. Regards Robert --- http://internetsociety.org/cybersecurity-speech-given-embassy-kingdom-netherlands-washington-dc Cybersecurity: Speech Given at the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Washington D.C Event Speaker: Sally Shipman Wentworth Thanks Martijn for that introduction, and thanks to Ambassador Jones-Bos and to the Netherlands Office for Science and Technology for inviting me to speak. Good evening. Since so many of you have spent today talking about how you might collaborate on cybersecurity, and about specific technical projects you may be working on, I thought I'd take a step back and provide a perspective on why cybersecurity is such a huge issue, why the stakes are so high and the answers so difficult. Today, more than two billion people around the world are online. That's two billion people who are relying on the Internet to be a trusted place to get and share information. Some subset of those two billion are using the Internet to buy real or digital goods, collaborate with business partners, and handle the tasks of everyday life, like paying their bills. Yet many people still worry about the security of their online transactions and whether their privacy is being protected. The endless stream of news stories about cyber attacks contributes to these concerns. Tonight, I'll lay out pieces of the cybersecurity puzzle, and put them in context of the Internet's fundamental principles. I'll end by offering a framework for policymaking that I believe will be useful in preserving those principles. I'll start with a basic question. What is cybersecurity? If you ask a friend or neighbor, you'll get one answer—maybe having to do with concerns over their credit card data being stolen or having gone too far in a Facebook posting that could be read by a prospective employer. If you ask parents, they will tell you they worry about what a child might be looking at, or the possibility that the child is the victim of cyber-bullying or on the receiving end of "sext" messages. This is a view of the end user, but it’s just one perspective. For businesses, cybersecurity has other implications— companies all need to safeguard customer information, protect commercial data, or prevent intrusions and damage to their corporate networks. Yet the business perspective of cybersecurity is far from uniform; companies vary widely in their specific needs, expectations, and sophistication. A small business may not be concerned about the same things that General Electric is concerned about, and the auto industry may not have the same cybersecurity requirements as a health care provider that relies on e-health records. And then there is the government perspective, which has to take into account the concerns of citizens and businesses while also dealing with any national security threats that an Internet attack might pose. With many government services and national physical infrastructures increasingly tied to the Internet, the disruptive potential of a cyber attack is significant. The Minister reminded us of this, this morning, with his recounting of the details of last summer's Diginotar crisis in the Netherlands. Governments' approaches to cybersecurity, like industries, aren't always the same. Among other things, they vary with the country's geographic location and economic development. For example there are differences between developed and developing countries in how they address cybersecurity. Those of us who live in developed countries have gotten used to inexpensive bandwidth and relatively easy access to security software. Doesn't mean we always take advantage of it, but it's there. In many developing nations, unlimited access for a set fee isn't a given. Users often pay more as their use goes up, so things like spam imposes costs on people who can least afford it. Neither, in some cases, can they afford to download regular antivirus updates. In places where electricity is unreliable, an attempt to download new software can turn into a costly failure if the power shuts off. There are other important differences in emerging economies. People access the Internet through wireless services, and Internet users in these countries are much more likely to get on the Internet at a cybercafé or community access points like libraries. These modes of access are extremely important for people who might otherwise never be able to get online. But these modes of connecting have certain risks. Cybercafes can be especially problematic, because of the possibility that private information will be available to other users who sit down a few minutes later at the same computer. In Uganda, criminals took advantage of this, methodically recording online banking transactions made at cybercafés. For all of these reasons, a developing country is likely to have a different set of priorities when it comes to the Internet, than a developed nation like the U.S. or the Netherlands. While the U.S. or Netherlands might be most focused on securing advanced computing infrastructure or funding cybersecurity R&D, a developing nation might well be more concerned with developing the technical and policy capacity to deal with online fraud. Many developing countries lack the basic legislative frameworks to address cybercrime, particularly when the crime may not even originate in their countries. Which of these concerns should be the priority when it comes to our cybersecurity efforts and cybersecurity policy in general? For that matter, how do the diverse concerns of government match up against the security needs of citizens and businesses? I'm not sure that anyone can answer that question, and I certainly wouldn't want to have to prioritize among these stakeholders. They all have legitimate interests, and in many cases, the interests, though specific to them, are also intertwined. It is the legitimate claims of all of these stakeholder groups that explains why it is so difficult to reach consensus on how to define or address cybersecurity. That doesn’t mean we should throw up our arms in frustration. It just means we have to be smart about how we proceed. Any framework for tackling cybersecurity needs to work back from an understanding of the different ways in which the Internet is valuable to its different stakeholders. To practically everyone, the Internet has value as a communications tool and as an engine of economic growth. It also has value as an enabler of social and even political change. What are the principles of the Internet, the building blocks, that give it this flexibility and that we should be sure preserve as we try to develop the right cybersecurity policies? There are some basic characteristics about the Internet that really matter: The first is the Internet’s global reach and integrity. As an Internet user, I have to feel confident that all of the endpoints are connected--that when I type in www.rabobank.com, that’s actually the site I go to, and not somewhere else. It’s a little like the seal on a bottle of Tylenol, which reassures me that there has been no tampering with what’s inside. This integrity is partly a result of a technical specification called DNSSEC, which has been in the news a bit lately because of the impact that the SOPA legislation would have had on DNSSEC. I'll come back to SOPA in a few minutes. The second core Internet principle is something we at the Internet Society call permission-less innovation. Said another way, this is the ability of anyone to create a new service on the Internet without having to get approval from a governing body. Without thinking about this too long, any of us could come up with a long list of online services that might not exist if scientists and entrepreneurs needed to vet their ideas with, say, their local phone company, their national government or the United Nations. If Tim Berners-Lee had to ask for permission, would the World-Wide Web exist? Would the idea of a Web “spider” have been rejected, cutting off the development of Internet search services such as Google? Would Facebook have 850 million users and be headed for an IPO that could value it at $100 billion? How about Wikipedia and Twitter and Web mapping software and downloadable music and hundreds of other things we take for granted in our daily lives? A third thing we must preserve is the accessibility of the Internet. This goes farther than people’s being able to consume whatever legal content they want; it extends to their ability to contribute content, add a server, or attach a new network, as long as they follow the Internet's technical standards. And the fourth thing to safeguard is the Internet’s spirit of collaboration. In addressing Internet security issues, we must find a way to get all stakeholders involved, from users, to those of you in the Internet research community, to commercial companies, to policymakers. Solutions developed in isolation either don’t solve the problem or cause more harm than good. In some cases they can create significant problems that undermine the stability of the Internet. The last few months have furnished some clear examples of badly designed policy "solutions" that would impact these core Internet principles. Take SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act, in the United States. SOPA took aim at a legitimate problem of the Internet—the theft of copyrighted material and trafficking in counterfeit goods. In practice, users who tried to access a site considered illegal under SOPA would have been redirected to a U.S. government Web page—perhaps one run by the Department of Homeland Security – or would not have reached any site at all. This policy would have compromised the implementation of the DNS security protocol, DNSSEC that I alluded to before. The policy would require ISPs to essentially hijack legitimate queries from users and redirect them to a site they didn’t ask for. It would cause people to constantly wonder if the website they were directed to was the same as the one they requested. This would have huge implications for Internet security. The other thing about SOPA is that it would have forced ISPs to block entire domains. Since a single domain can house many unrelated sites, this policy would have impacted all sorts of non-infringing sites. It was, in the end, legislation that would have done far more harm than good, and the Internet community, including my organization and I'm sure many of you here, voiced its disapproval. We were happy when Congress shelved the plan. Now, we have to turn our attention to the equally controversial ACTA, or anti-counterfeit trade agreement. ACTA is an international treaty whose basic purpose is to provide an international framework and standards for the enforcement of Intellectual Property online and to address the sale of counterfeiting goods via the Internet. As we did with SOPA, the Internet Society has gone on record criticizing ACTA, in particular for the secretive way in which this international accord was developed, with only two of the 11 negotiating texts made public. Like SOPA though, the most effective pushback appears to be happening at a grass-roots level, with protests in many parts of central and Eastern Europe. ACTA would allow countries to block traffic or content and would give them considerable latitude in defining acts of infringement. The ambiguity of the treaty’s language raises the specter of findings of infringement or counterfeiting being used as a pretext for limiting Internet freedom. The protestors have done a good job of making their voices heard: Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic have all backed off their pledge to adopt the treaty—at least for now. The Netherlands did the same last week. It's encouraging to see governments getting the message and reconsidering policies that would undermine the Internet's principles. But it would be unrealistic to expect that all governments are going learn these lessons and stop trying to control this medium. Five months ago, China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan approached the U.N. with a proposal for an International Code of Conduct for Information Security. The proposal included a line about “curbing the dissemination of information" that undermines other countries’ "political, economic and social stability, as well as their spiritual and cultural environments.” >From the perspective of most of us in this room, that’s obviously too sweeping a guideline; it goes against the grain of the Internet. But it is part of the international context for addressing cybersecurity's challenges. We can't pretend it isn't out there. Happily, there are goals related to cybersecurity that many countries already agree on. An Internet security breach, after all, isn’t like a territorial crime, where the consequences are generally limited to the geographic area where it happens. Internet security problems have the potential to spread quickly and widely, something we first learned back in the late 1980s, with the release of the Morris worm that infected 6,000 defense, university and research computers. That was front-page news, at the time. There have been similar incidents in recent years, some reported and some not, that have caused policymakers everywhere to pay closer attention to network security and look for ways to cooperate across borders. In particular, many governments are looking to protect vulnerable groups, including children, from online threats and to find ways to empower them to protect themselves. Governments are eager to learn from the best cybersecurity practices of others. And no government should want a cyber criminal who launches an attack from their country to have a safe haven. Interpol has done some great work in tracking down online criminals. And there are other mechanisms that countries have that reflect their common interests in ensuring the Internet's safety. For instance, there are computer emergency readiness teams—CERT, for short—all over the world, coordinating their countries' efforts and sharing information when there are security incidents. 

Last year, when the White House released a document called the International Strategy for Cyberspace, it talked about the importance of getting international research communities “to take on next-generation challenges to cybersecurity.” The White House position paper also cited the “immediate and long-term benefit” of helping developing nations shore up their own cybersecurity capabilities. Cooperation between developing and developed nations is already happening. I was in Trinidad & Tobago last week, meeting with the Caribbean Telecom Union. This is the organization responsible for working with ICT Ministries all over the Caribbean to help them implement Internet-related policies. They have a small staff—four or five people—-highly qualified-and their priority this year is squarely on cybersecurity. Many Caribbean countries do not have the resources, technical expertise or capacity at the individual government level to forge cybersecurity policy on their own. Yet they don't want technology to pass them by. They want to be a part of the global information economy, but they know that this future depends on their ability to implement some level of cybersecurity. As a result, they are looking for private sector input and advice. They are eager to learn from governments like the U.S. and the Netherlands about what's working and what isn't. They are reaching out to the technical community for technical solutions. Their approach is practical. There are numerous other examples of international, multistakeholder cooperation on cybersecurity issues that are taking place within the OECD, APEC, the Internet Governance Forum, and the Organization of American States, just to name a few. So when I talk about information sharing and international cooperation, it isn't just a fancy construct. It's real; it's happening now. I'd like to close by discussing, more tactically, what we should be doing about cybersecurity. How should we approach it at a policy level? First, international cooperation -to the extent possible – is essential. The reason for this is clear. If an attack hits a retail company in London, and the perpetrator is in Sarajevo, the malware may have traversed computers in three or four other countries en route to its destination. That's a situation that requires cross-border cooperation. Cross-border cooperation is also valuable in situations that aren't as high pressure, for instance in avoiding duplication of effort in the development of security technologies or protocols. The Internet Engineering Task Force is a good example of collaborative technical standards development that is open to participation by any expert from around the world. The discussions that happened earlier today among you are another example of positive cooperation that should serve as a catalyst for further innovation. Second, any policies we come up with should be based on open technical standards. The Internet wouldn't have had the explosive success it has had if the software that has driven its growth weren't easily adaptable for other purposes on the network. Security solutions that are developed within expert communities—again, the IETF is an example—are more likely to be effective and scalable, and consistent with the Internet's basic principals. Third, the policies we come up with should be flexible enough to evolve over time. We know that the technology is going to change—that's a given. The solutions need to be responsive to new challenges. We don't want to develop a policy in 2012 that is outdated in 2013. Fourth, the policies need to be developed using a multi-stakeholder model. That means that effective policies can't be unilaterally created by government. They can't reflect a back-room deal worked out by industry leaders. They can't just be the brainchildren of engineers. All of these stakeholders must work together. Within this policy framework, we should not overlook a few critical values, namely basic privacy protections and freedom of speech. Privacy protection begins with better awareness and understanding by users of how their information will be collected, used and stored by those they interact with online. I consider myself an experienced online user, yet I struggle to understand the legalese in most online privacy agreements and often don't take the time to read them. If we want people to use the medium, they have to trust it. To trust it they need some basic understandings about what will happen to their personal information and confidence that their expectations will be met. Freedom of speech is also fundamental to the Internet for reasons that most of us in this room, coming from countries with long traditions of free personal expression, take for granted. People need to be able to share ideas and information and communicate freely; this is what makes the Internet powerful and allows people to innovate. If you institute a cybersecurity policy that disregards freedom of expression, you threaten one of the main things that make the Internet valuable. The bottom line is that the policies we put in place should not undo the good thing we've got. There's a temptation, in many situations relating to cybersecurity, to be reactive, especially if something has happened that has jeopardized the welfare of a child or compromised financial data, or resulted in major infrastructure damage. We have to remember that it isn't the Internet that does bad things, any more than it is the post office that does bad things or the telecommunications network or transportation system. People sometimes use these mechanisms to do bad things, but it's still people doing them. We shouldn't attack the medium in an effort to deter the crime. There is one other thing I'd like to add, which is always crucial to the development of good policy. And that is the willingness of those who are developing policy to truly listen to those affected by their decisions. One of the remarkable things about the Internet is how quickly it allows people to rally around a good idea, or discredit a bad one. Would it be a good idea to develop a cybersecurity technology or policy approach that choked off permission-less innovation? What if cyber policies resulted in an Internet that was carved up along national boundaries? We could create those things, but they would leave us with a radically diminished platform, one that far fewer people would want to use. I'm not even sure it would be the Internet. And that, we must not allow. Thanks for listening—and for being part of this crucial effort, at such an important time -Sally Wentworth, Dutch Embassy, Feb. 21 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Feb 22 15:32:26 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:32:26 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sala, It¹s not improper for the IGC to support nominees submitted by other organisations, or positions advocated by other organisations. The Nomcom is only responsible for submitting and deciding on IGC nominees ­ I am not suggesting at all that we change that or add additional names to IGC nominations. I agree that would be improper. However I don¹t see why we shouldn¹t express support for nominees of other organisations. The only reason we are discussing this at all is because of some sort of administrative stuff up that I don¹t understand yet. I appreciate that the Nomcom has attempted to make amends at the last moment but the simple fact is that due to some process issue some very good names were not considered. Those good names of civil society people have been forwarded anyway. I think it is proper to indicate to the powers that be that we are supportive of those names being considered in addition to those IGC submitted, particularly in the circumstance where the number of names submitted by IGC is less than the number of vacancies that are out there to be filled. Ian From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 To: Ian Peter Cc: , Thomas Lowenhaupt , Valeria Betancourt , , Jacqueline Morris , shaila mistry , Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application Dear All, The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without interference from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add names must be their decision solely and this is to preserve some level of independence. Once the NomCom makes the selection, the recommendations are then put forward by the IGC through the coordinators the Secretariat. In this case, one of the Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself from dealing with this administrative issue. For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list of Nominees would be improper unless the APC list was within the basket of nominees that they were considering and decide on their own accord that they accept the candidates and list them with other nominees. In this instance, APC has withdrawn its list of candidates from the NomCom and the NomCom should only review the list of candidates within its current basket. Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways we can improve the processes etc. Kind Regards, On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > All, > > As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the relevant > UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, IGC is also > supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people on this list > would support such an action. > > (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn from > the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that need > further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC expressed support > for the APC nominees. That¹s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and may be our > easiest path forward in the circumstances.) > > > Ian Peter > > > > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > > Reply-To: >, Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 > To: Valeria Betancourt > > Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >, >, Jacqueline Morris > >, shaila mistry > >, Anriette Esterhuysen > >, > > Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application > > >    All, >   >  The NomCom has been discussing adding APC names to the list to be submitted, > and not subtracting those whom we had already selected, agreeing this would be > unkind and unfair. >   >  If this agreeable, let us know. >   >  Best, >   >  Tom Lowenhaupt >   >  On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >> >> Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom,  >> >>   >>   >> >>   >>   >> Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC >> NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret that >> the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first phase >> of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened as this is not >> fair to the current list of nominees.  We have submitted our names directly >> to the Secretariat.  We do hope that the IGC can clarify its procedures in >> the future. >>   >> >>   >>   >> Best,  >>   >> >>   >>   >> Valeria  >>   >>   >>   > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Feb 22 15:59:04 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:59:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 / MAG consultations - Are comments being aggregated ? Message-ID: Are we aggregating the comments related to the MAG consultation list of topics & sub-topics somewhere? I ask, as perhaps it might make it easier for folks to review existing comments and suggest revisions. If no document has been created, might I suggest an editable document on the http://www.igcaucus.org website. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 avri at acm.org Wed Feb 22 16:36:06 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:36:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: References: <4F450CC0.8010502@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <8163E9F9-0C82-4F17-B01E-0FF8CA433073@acm.org> On 22 Feb 2012, at 15:11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > we can then discuss ways we can improve the processes etc. my first suggestion is that we follow the processes we have next time. then figure out of they need improvement. this whole process has been a disaster, but previous incarnations of nomcoms have not had this much trouble. 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 tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk Wed Feb 22 16:45:40 2012 From: tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk (Tim Davies) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:45:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 / MAG consultations - Are comments being aggregated ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Robert, I believe the proposal was for volunteers to come forward to aggregate the comments from each of the e-mail threads by the end of Friday. I'm not sure if there are volunteers yet. Doing this in a collaborative document would certainly seem useful to make the aggregation of comments transparent. Would it be suitable to use the Google Doc you placed at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_056iP7sVxaXkPI732vTNZfAUrVVRofO1iGBYEsevIo/editfor this purpose? All the best Tim On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Are we aggregating the comments related to the MAG consultation list of > topics & sub-topics somewhere? > > I ask, as perhaps it might make it easier for folks to review existing > comments and suggest revisions. If no document has been created, might I > suggest an editable document on the http://www.igcaucus.org website. > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 > > -- http://www.timdavies.org.uk 07834 856 303. @timdavies Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk -------------------------- Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Feb 22 17:03:01 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:03:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 / MAG consultations - Are comments being aggregated ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tim, lt me comment below. On 2012-02-22, at 4:45 PM, Tim Davies wrote: > Hello Robert, > > I believe the proposal was for volunteers to come forward to aggregate the comments from each of the e-mail threads by the end of Friday. I'm not sure if there are volunteers yet. > As Katitza posted in an earlier message, the existing MAG members have been given a deadline to propose and discuss revisions to the topics & sub-topics that were developed at the open MAG meeting last week. If the caucus wants its input to be received in time, then our internal deadlines need to be sooner then the ones set for MAG members. > Doing this in a collaborative document would certainly seem useful to make the aggregation of comments transparent. > great to hear. > Would it be suitable to use the Google Doc you placed at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_056iP7sVxaXkPI732vTNZfAUrVVRofO1iGBYEsevIo/edit for this purpose? > In the absence of an alternative, I'm more then happy to have the google doc I shared online used to aggregate comments and/or suggested revisions that are proposed. regards Robert > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Are we aggregating the comments related to the MAG consultation list of topics & sub-topics somewhere? > > I ask, as perhaps it might make it easier for folks to review existing comments and suggest revisions. If no document has been created, might I suggest an editable document on the http://www.igcaucus.org website. > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 > > > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - #5381958. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 22 17:45:29 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:45:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: <8163E9F9-0C82-4F17-B01E-0FF8CA433073@acm.org> References: <4F450CC0.8010502@communisphere.com> <8163E9F9-0C82-4F17-B01E-0FF8CA433073@acm.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 22 Feb 2012, at 15:11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > we can then discuss ways we can improve the processes etc. > > > my first suggestion is that we follow the processes we have next time. > then figure out of they need improvement. > > this whole process has been a disaster, but previous incarnations of > nomcoms have not had this much trouble. > Life sometimes hits us with its challenges and sometimes they take us by surprise but there are lessons to be learnt and lemonade to be made from lemons. :) > > 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 Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 22 17:42:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:42:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Sala, > > It’s not improper for the IGC to support nominees submitted by other > organisations, or positions advocated by other organisations. The Nomcom is > only responsible for submitting and deciding on IGC nominees – I am not > suggesting at all that we change that or add additional names to IGC > nominations. I agree that would be improper. However I don’t see why we > shouldn’t express support for nominees of other organisations. > > Thanks Ian for the clarification. I respectfully have some reservations and the issue is not APC but as a matter of principle. I had advised APC when they asked about their application in December that I was not aware of the Application as they had sent it to the NomCom Chair. [ There is room in the future to set up systems to ensure that a specific email address is especially set up to receive applications. This will ensure that there are automatic responses to the applications etc] On the other hand, I had asked for the Applications that APC sent in December, 2011, I noted that it did not comply with the specific instructions that were sent to the list. I cannot presume to know how APC's application was treated, that is whether it was rejected because it was not in the proper format or because it got lost etc. This is something that the NomCom Chair will have to clarify. Having said that, you will recall that when the initial list of nominees were sent to me, I had to submit the names to the Secretariat and noted that they were submitted to me and some applications were not in the proper format. I then publicly advised candidates to comply with the instructions. There are other variables arising out of extraordinary circumstances that compound the issues. We do not have the best of circumstances but are making the best of the situation. After the NomCom does concludes its work, we can then look at all the lessons we can improve upon. The only reason we are discussing this at all is because of some sort of > administrative stuff up that I don’t understand yet. > You are correct. There are some *othe*r considerations which I am privy to. However you can trust that whilst we do not have an ideal situation or set of circumstances (it is a very tight rope from an administrative view), decisions are being made from the very narrow options. > I appreciate that the Nomcom has attempted to make amends at the last > moment but the simple fact is that due to some process issue some very good > names were not considered. > > There is no contention, in retrospect, the absence of very clear procedural guidelines and "extraordinary circumstances" have led to the situation that we are facing. This process issue can in the future be improved with reforms of procedural guidelines to ensure that we do not have a repeat. Those good names of civil society people have been forwarded anyway. I > think it is proper to indicate to the powers that be that we are supportive > of those names being considered in addition to those IGC submitted, > particularly in the circumstance where the number of names submitted by IGC > is less than the number of vacancies that are out there to be filled. > It is hoped that the NomCom will be able to send list of nominees that meet the quota in any regard. The only issue with supporting a list of names aside from those sent by the NomCom is to endanger the very list that the IGC will submit which is the NomCom's decision. > > Ian > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > *Date: *Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 > *To: *Ian Peter > *Cc: *, Thomas Lowenhaupt < > toml at communisphere.com>, Valeria Betancourt , < > nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jacqueline Morris , > shaila mistry , Anriette Esterhuysen > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application > > > Dear All, > > The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without > interference from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add names must > be their decision solely and this is to preserve some level of > independence. Once the NomCom makes the selection, the recommendations are > then put forward by the IGC through the coordinators the Secretariat. In > this case, one of the Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself > from dealing with this administrative issue. > > For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list of > Nominees would be improper unless the APC list was within the basket of > nominees that they were considering and decide on their own accord that > they accept the candidates and list them with other nominees. In this > instance, APC has withdrawn its list of candidates from the NomCom and the > NomCom should only review the list of candidates within its current basket. > > Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways we can > improve the processes etc. > > Kind Regards, > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > All, > > As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the > relevant UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, > IGC is also supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people > on this list would support such an action. > > (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn > from the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that > need further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC expressed > support for the APC nominees. That’s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and > may be our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) > > > Ian Peter > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *Thomas Lowenhaupt http://toml at communisphere.com> > > *Reply-To: * http://governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >, Thomas Lowenhaupt < > toml at communisphere.com > > > *Date: *Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 > *To: *Valeria Betancourt > > *Cc: *"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com < > http://salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> >, http://nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org> >, Jacqueline Morris < > jam at jacquelinemorris.com >, shaila > mistry >, Anriette > Esterhuysen >, < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > *Subject: *[governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application > > > All, > > The NomCom has been discussing *adding APC names* to the list to be > submitted, and *not subtracting* those whom we had already selected, > agreeing this would be unkind and unfair. > > If this agreeable, let us know. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > > > Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, > > > > > > > Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC > NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret > that the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the > first phase of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened > as this is not fair to the current list of nominees. We have submitted our > names directly to the Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its > procedures in the future. > > > > > Best, > > > > > Valeria > > > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 22 17:53:39 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:53:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 / MAG consultations - Are comments being aggregated ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Robert, Threads were sent out and timelines as well to ensure that we make submissions on the 27th February, 2012. I would recommend visiting the threads. Volunteers within the threads are invited to aggregate the comments. Once this is done, this will put to the list through the Statement Workspace and a 48 hour call for comments to gather rough consensus etc. We will then officially wrap up the consultation process and empower our current MAG members to take forward IGC's suggestions. Warm Regards, Sala On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Tim, > > lt me comment below. > > On 2012-02-22, at 4:45 PM, Tim Davies wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > I believe the proposal was for volunteers to come forward to aggregate the > comments from each of the e-mail threads by the end of Friday. I'm not sure > if there are volunteers yet. > > As Katitza posted in an earlier message, the existing MAG members have > been given a deadline to propose and discuss revisions to the topics & > sub-topics that were developed at the open MAG meeting last week. > > If the caucus wants its input to be received in time, then our internal > deadlines need to be sooner then the ones set for MAG members. > > > Doing this in a collaborative document would certainly seem useful to make > the aggregation of comments transparent. > > great to hear. > > Would it be suitable to use the Google Doc you placed at > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_056iP7sVxaXkPI732vTNZfAUrVVRofO1iGBYEsevIo/editfor this purpose? > > > In the absence of an alternative, I'm more then happy to have the google > doc I shared online used to aggregate comments and/or suggested revisions > that are proposed. > > regards > > Robert > > > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Are we aggregating the comments related to the MAG consultation list of >> topics & sub-topics somewhere? >> >> I ask, as perhaps it might make it easier for folks to review existing >> comments and suggest revisions. If no document has been created, might I >> suggest an editable document on the http://www.igcaucus.org website. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.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 >> >> > > > -- > > > http://www.timdavies.org.uk > 07834 856 303. > @timdavies > > Co-director of Practical Participation: > http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > -------------------------- > Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales - > #5381958. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 18:47:33 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:47:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance for Development [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, I invite everyone interested in contributing to the IG4D Main Session planning/development to access the Pirate Pad live wiki sheet at http://piratepad.net/qmUopmWaLr This is the most convenient way to edit with simply typing in. Kindly note that once you are on the page, kindly add your name on the right box so a color highlight is included with your text. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 20:02:57 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 21:02:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Dear Sala, I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching up with reading the messages. I am not clear which document you want me to send. I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the discussions today? Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. De On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Deirdre, > > As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society component > of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > > If you could please send it in a word document that would be super helpful > and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be sending our > Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > Kind Regards, > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- “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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RP IGC statement.doc Type: application/msword Size: 37888 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 Feb 22 20:29:41 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:29:41 +1200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance for Development [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Whilst the pirate pad is good, we would like to be able to archive threads of things that are discussed etc. For these purposes, we encourage dialogue via the mailing list which will then be consolidated and put back to the list through the Statement workspace. This of course does'nt stop you from using the pirate pad and then transferring your dialogue to the list of course by the 23rd where it will be consolidated with other contributions of course. Kind Regards, On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear All, > > I invite everyone interested in contributing to the IG4D Main Session > planning/development to access the Pirate Pad live wiki sheet at > > http://piratepad.net/qmUopmWaLr > > This is the most convenient way to edit with simply typing in. Kindly > note that once you are on the page, kindly add your name on the right > box so a color highlight is included with your text. > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 20:42:56 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:42:56 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance for Development [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, In the end I will still have to consolidate information from a variety of sources where the information is being contributed from as this is a multistakeholder activity and contributions are also coming from outside the IGC so it would be convenient for all to contribute to the pirate pad / ether pad. IGC members can freely contribute to this thread or etherpad, no issue. Best Fouad On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Whilst the pirate pad is good, we would like to be able to archive threads > of things that are discussed etc. For these purposes, we encourage dialogue > via the mailing list which will then be consolidated and put back to the > list through the Statement workspace. > > This of course does'nt stop you from using the pirate pad and then > transferring your dialogue to the list of course by the 23rd where it will > be consolidated with other contributions of course. > > Kind Regards, > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I invite everyone interested in contributing to the IG4D Main Session >> planning/development to access the Pirate Pad live wiki sheet at >> >> http://piratepad.net/qmUopmWaLr >> >> This is the most convenient way to edit with simply typing in. Kindly >> note that once you are on the page, kindly add your name on the right >> box so a color highlight is included with your text. >> >> -- >> Regards. >> -------------------------- >> Fouad Bajwa > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > 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 shahzad at bytesforall.pk Wed Feb 22 23:14:07 2012 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:14:07 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking System. Message-ID: <053001ccf1e1$98acd160$ca067420$@pk> Folks, Forwarding for your kind information, the little news and the grand plans of Government of Pakistan to build Great Firewall. We believe that it coincides well with the UN's Experts Panel on 29th February and the panelists may like to raise this? RFP is attached and here is the link: http://ictrdf.org.pk/RFP-%20URL%20Filtering%20 &%20Blocking.pdf An excerpt from the RFP: "Each box should be able to handle a block list of up to 50 million URLs (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing delay of not more than 1 milliseconds." Bytes for All, Pakistan have been expecting that there will be major crackdown on the Internet towards elections. and this probably is the start of things to come in the near future. We are going to issue a public statement on this and will share the updates. Best wishes and regards Shahzad Ahmad www.bytesforall.pk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RFP- URL Filtering & Blocking.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 409066 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 23:32:01 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:32:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Why would they want this info? Message-ID: https://publicaffairs.linx.net/news/?p=6997 What would they DO with 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 23 02:31:55 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:31:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does APC support the IGF NomCom's selections or is this a one-way street? APC is an important organization, its members have contributed enormously to the IGF (and WSIS and WGIG etc.) but it isn't the only cs player in this space. Adam On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Sala, > > It’s not improper for the IGC to support nominees submitted by other > organisations, or positions advocated by other organisations. The Nomcom is > only responsible for submitting and deciding on IGC nominees – I am not > suggesting at all that we change that or add additional names to IGC > nominations. I agree that would be improper. However I don’t see why we > shouldn’t express support for nominees of other organisations. > > The only reason we are discussing this at all is because of some sort of > administrative stuff up that I don’t understand yet.  I appreciate that the > Nomcom has attempted to make amends at the last moment but the simple fact > is that due to some process issue some very good names were not considered. > > Those good names of civil society people have been forwarded anyway. I think > it is proper to indicate to the powers that be that we are supportive of > those names being considered in addition to those IGC submitted, > particularly in the circumstance where the number of names submitted by IGC > is less than the number of vacancies that are out there to be filled. > > Ian > > > ________________________________ > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 > To: Ian Peter > Cc: , Thomas Lowenhaupt > , Valeria Betancourt , > , Jacqueline Morris , > shaila mistry , Anriette Esterhuysen > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application > > > Dear All, > > The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without interference > from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add names must be their > decision solely and this is to preserve some level of independence. Once the > NomCom makes the selection, the recommendations are then put forward by the > IGC through the coordinators the Secretariat. In this case, one of the > Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself from dealing with this > administrative issue. > > For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list of Nominees > would be improper unless the APC list was within the basket of nominees that > they were considering and decide on their own accord that they accept the > candidates and list them with other nominees. In this instance, APC has > withdrawn its list of candidates from the NomCom and the NomCom should only > review the list of candidates within its current basket. > > Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways we can > improve the processes etc. > > Kind Regards, > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > All, > > As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the relevant > UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, IGC is > also supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people on this > list would support such an action. > > (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn > from the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that > need further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC expressed > support for the APC nominees. That’s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and > may be our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) > > > Ian Peter > > > ________________________________ > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > > Reply-To: >, Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 > To: Valeria Betancourt > > Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >, >, Jacqueline Morris > >, shaila mistry > >, Anriette Esterhuysen > >, > > > > Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application > > >    All, > >  The NomCom has been discussing adding APC names to the list to be > submitted, and not subtracting those whom we had already selected, agreeing > this would be unkind and unfair. > >  If this agreeable, let us know. > >  Best, > >  Tom Lowenhaupt > >  On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > > > Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, > > > > > > > Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC > NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret that > the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first > phase of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened as this > is not fair to the current list of nominees.  We have submitted our names > directly to the Secretariat.  We do hope that the IGC can clarify its > procedures in the future. > > > > > Best, > > > > > Valeria > > > > > > ________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Feb 23 02:42:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:42:57 +1200 Subject: [governance] Message from Sala Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, I bring you warm greetings from Fiji. I would like to take the time to thank you all for the excellent work that you are doing in raising issues at various Forums whether through Face to Face meetings or remote participation into the Consultations in Geneva. I also congratulate the Civil Society members who are part of the CSTD Working Group namely Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Parminder Jeet Singh, Marilia Marcel, Anriette Esterhuysen and Izumi Aizu for raising our issues and advocating the multistakeholder model. We also acknowledge and thank you for the constant reporting and updates. I would also like to thank Robert Guerra who has been extraordinarily helpful in assisting the remote participants feel as if they were on-site. To all those of you who contributed actively through the Skype Chats, pirate pads, emails (there are too many of you to name but you all know who you are), thank you. We are witnessing an intense period in the world through the various civil, political, economic, social and cultural shocks. We hear reports of foreign journalists who may have been murdered in Syria, continuous threats and assault on an open and free internet and we recognise that we live in unusual times. Diversity of opinions are critical to assist us in arriving at a panoramic and holistic view of the issues at stake. No one should be marginalised, everyone has the right and freedom to express themselves fully and fill empowered to share responsibilities. Thank you to all those who have contributed extensively to the IGF Consultations both on-site and off-site (remote) participants. As you know, the MAG is currently inviting feedback from civil society on the various themes and thread. Please make every use of this opportunity to make your voices heard. For those of you who are already contributing, keep up the excellent work and pace. I would encourage greater participation from everyone because each of your contributions is significant and is important. Let us all be empowered and make your voices heard. The contributions will be consolidated and posted on the Statement Workspace for a rough consensus call before it is finalised and sent to the MAG on the 27th February, 2012. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 03:48:12 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:48:12 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: Happy Birthday Schombe! > I agree in principle. In my opinion, I think it is necessary to launch the > topics of discussion that we can relay to the mailing lists at local, sub > regional and regional levels. This will prearrange RP. And if that is the > case, these discussion topics may be sent two months prior to that national > actors can react. > This is excellent. Deirdre had also suggested having people volunteer to assist in Remote Participation. Be good if people empower themselves to the WG to see how they can help but more importantly, what Schombe is highlighting to identify core teams at national and sub regional and regional IGFs etc. They can also prepare in advance to scout out venues, and access capacities and if the private sector got involved to sponsor bandwidth etc etc. It will be good to fully activate the multistakeholder collaborative approach in this regard. If there are institutions who can volunteer to run trainings on moderation etc, that will be great. > In our mailing lists, we enrolled participants with skills and proven > expertise can contribute actively to the topics scheduled. > +1 > The mailing list has the advantage of allowing the actors to react > wherever they may be. > > A very interesting proposal by Jovan is that each level of national IGF, > it is proposed that people can be trained to the moderation of discussion > for RP. > > These individuals trained can also help to summarize the discussion by > including the observations at the local level. > > Absolutely, it is good to work towards this. If there are a group of > people who are interested to set up an ad hoc group to discuss offline how > to tease out options etc and bring back to the list for feedback and with > most of us spread across the various regions, we should be able to advocate > "meaningful participation" in a more cohesive manner that enables equality > in participation for both onsite and offsite participants. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > > > 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque > >> Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all, >> >> I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working group, >> but not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views. >> >> I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely >> important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the >> other IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for >> RP, including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is >> indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as an >> integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes >> suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the >> presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a >> volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot remember... and >> others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the RPWG in >> formal IGF meetings. >> >> I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to >> implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the >> concern about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room >> difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an >> institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet recognized >> as such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and appalled >> by the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred >> precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting process. >> RP is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote >> moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it >> work. >> >> Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the on >> site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the chair >> tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling factors in >> the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel moderators as a >> required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this role is >> indispensable. >> >> The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding >> for attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to >> collaborate on site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double >> roles during my term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most >> part, we are self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had >> some funding from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host >> country and IGF secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, >> equipment) at the meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter >> nowadays. >> >> The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a >> dynamic coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on >> practical implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing >> and happy to collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training >> materials, elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs. >> >> We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy to >> the IGC list as well for your feedback. >> >> Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote >> Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on the IGF >> RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given important >> impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going! >> >> Saludos, Ginger >> >> ** >> >> >> >> On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >> >>> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is >>> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for RP. >>> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should prepare >>> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group >>> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the limitations. >>> >>> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, >>> where he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent >>> helps), be aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit >>> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": assertive >>> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not >>> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, ...and the >>> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience helps. >>> Ultimately, he has to be credible. >>> >>> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm >>> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. It is >>> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train chairs >>> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). >>> >>> What can we do for IGF chairs? >>> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic >>> expectations about their effectiveness >>> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good examples, >>> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF meeting, >>> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, introduced >>> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! >>> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about the >>> role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time management). >>> >>> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes in >>> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 >>> years. Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made >>> this possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people >>> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at every >>> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and successful. >>> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not work >>> well, but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF >>> secretariat and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF >>> RPWG started with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the >>> meeting, they discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to >>> participate, they liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat >>> work behind the scenes.... >>> >>> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know that >>> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should speak out >>> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their >>> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize * >>> enough* the great success of RP and need to give it another push >>> without making it too formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 >>> needs mix of recognition, funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work >>> which is highly professional) and the ownership of the IGF community. >>> >>> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on >>> Anriette's idea for guidelines..... >>> >>> Regards, Jovan >>> >>> ******** >>> >>> *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *****The latest from Diplo: * Learn about Internet governance and ICT >>> policy: enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building >>> Programme (more info ). >>> >>> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week >>> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a >>> central role. >>> >>> >>> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: >>> >>> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >>> >>> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate >>> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote >>> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is >>> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them >>> to participate. >>> >>> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget >>> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance >>> for the additional expense involved. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala and everyone, >>> >>> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth >>> paragraph to follow the second - see below. >>> >>> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote >>> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind >>> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a >>> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph >>> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to >>> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) >>> >>> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva >>> De >>> >>> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate >>> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, >>> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting >>> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >>> >>> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible >>> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >>> participation. >>> >>> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >>> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >>> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. >>> >>> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >>> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >>> >>> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >>> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live >>> transcript. >>> >>> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >>> than one function. >>> >>> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >>> work together to bring them about: >>> >>> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants >>> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >>> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >>> >>> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth >>> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance >>> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. >>> >>> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >>> >>> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, >>> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >>> through RP that will be available. >>> >>> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and >>> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical >>> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). >>> >>> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >>> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >>> >>> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>> >>> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >>> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting >>> >>> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >>> presentations access through RP. >>> >>> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >>> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >>> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted >>> to ensure improved remote participation processes. >>> >>> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, >>> and who wish to do so from a remote location. >>> >>> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >>> >>> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a >>> reality. >>> >>> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >>> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >>> countries could access the IGF. >>> >>> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>> methodology. >>> >>> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a >>> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >>> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >>> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>> >>> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >>> also include the following:- >>> >>> · Outreach; >>> >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>> >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in >>> a series of strategic roll out; >>> >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can >>> be better involved in the remote hubs etc >>> >>> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, >>> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the >>> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as >>> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the >>> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for >>> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >>> >>> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC >>> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi >>> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue >>> on how we can actively contribute in this area. >>> >>> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you >>> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied >>> the text below. >>> >>> Warm Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >>> >>> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >>> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >>> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, >>> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to >>> observers. >>> >>> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral >>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >>> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without >>> effective remote participation. >>> >>> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team >>> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >>> >>> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >>> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to >>> live transcript. >>> >>> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >>> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions >>> and not just the Main Sessions. >>> >>> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving >>> more than one function. >>> >>> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, >>> and work together to bring them about: >>> >>> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >>> participants through planning meetings to give online and >>> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and >>> contribute to meetings. >>> >>> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >>> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with >>> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from >>> offline participants. >>> >>> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >>> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting >>> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. >>> >>> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >>> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the >>> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. >>> >>> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation >>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same >>> time, and are responsible for interactions between the >>> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and >>> the remote participants). >>> >>> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for >>> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the >>> meeting remotely. >>> >>> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>> >>> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as >>> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of >>> coverage of the meeting >>> >>> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >>> interactive presentations access through RP. >>> >>> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil >>> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >>> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical >>> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote >>> participation processes. >>> >>> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >>> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. >>> >>> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >>> >>> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >>> participation a reality. >>> >>> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries >>> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of >>> these countries could access the IGF. >>> >>> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>> methodology. >>> >>> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain >>> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should >>> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >>> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>> >>> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >>> also include the following:- >>> >>> · Outreach; >>> >>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>> >>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the >>> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; >>> >>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments >>> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc >>> >>> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org >>> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org>>, >>> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra >>> > writes >>> >>> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - >>> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat >>> and/or Google >>> >>> >>> Do they have a product which competes with the current market >>> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something >>> which works, of course - historically their tools have been >>> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or >>> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the >>> battle. >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 03:50:21 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:50:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Message from Sala In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies for the incorrect spelling "filling should be feeling" and the other numerous typos. Sala On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I bring you warm greetings from Fiji. I would like to take the time to > thank you all for the excellent work that you are doing in raising issues > at various Forums whether through Face to Face meetings or remote > participation into the Consultations in Geneva. I also congratulate the > Civil Society members who are part of the CSTD Working Group namely > Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Parminder Jeet Singh, Marilia Marcel, Anriette > Esterhuysen and Izumi Aizu for raising our issues and advocating the > multistakeholder model. We also acknowledge and thank you for the constant > reporting and updates. I would also like to thank Robert Guerra who has > been extraordinarily helpful in assisting the remote participants feel as > if they were on-site. To all those of you who contributed actively through > the Skype Chats, pirate pads, emails (there are too many of you to name but > you all know who you are), thank you. > > We are witnessing an intense period in the world through the various > civil, political, economic, social and cultural shocks. We hear reports of > foreign journalists who may have been murdered in Syria, continuous threats > and assault on an open and free internet and we recognise that we live in > unusual times. > > Diversity of opinions are critical to assist us in arriving at a panoramic > and holistic view of the issues at stake. No one should be marginalised, > everyone has the right and freedom to express themselves fully and fill > empowered to share responsibilities. Thank you to all those who have > contributed extensively to the IGF Consultations both on-site and off-site > (remote) participants. > > As you know, the MAG is currently inviting feedback from civil society on > the various themes and thread. Please make every use of this opportunity to > make your voices heard. For those of you who are already contributing, keep > up the excellent work and pace. I would encourage greater participation > from everyone because each of your contributions is significant and is > important. Let us all be empowered and make your voices heard. The > contributions will be consolidated and posted on the Statement Workspace > for a rough consensus call before it is finalised and sent to the MAG on > the 27th February, 2012. > > Kind Regards, > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 04:10:06 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:10:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] The UN Threat to Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: <8498B74D07C74CA99C6C4677F50804B7@PortableRenateBloem> References: <8498B74D07C74CA99C6C4677F50804B7@PortableRenateBloem> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 17:17, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: *The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom * *By Robert M. McDowell, commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission* The Wall Street Journal - 21 February 2012 - - - We heard that hackneyed slogan quite a few times since 2003. It is typically sung by some republican representative, the party pushing SOPA, PIPA, ACTA. Double tongue as usual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._McDowell Robert M. McDowell was first appointed to a seat on the Federal Communications Commission by U.S. President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2006. Commissioner McDowell has been an outspoken critic of net neutrality rules, casting a dissenting vote based on four primary concerns: 1) Nothing is broken in the Internet access market that needs fixing; 2) The FCC does not have the legal authority to issue net neutrality rules; 3) The rules are likely to cause irreparable harm; and 4) Existing law and Internet governance structures provide ample consumer protection in the event a systemic market failure occurs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 04:16:17 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:16:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F449D8B.70400@apc.org> <4F44E3DD.70802@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: I thank you most sincerely for these wishes to go straight to my heart. I am still very attached and you express all my friendship. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/23 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > > Happy Birthday Schombe! > > I agree in principle. In my opinion, I think it is necessary to launch the >> topics of discussion that we can relay to the mailing lists at local, sub >> regional and regional levels. This will prearrange RP. And if that is the >> case, these discussion topics may be sent two months prior to that national >> actors can react. >> > > This is excellent. Deirdre had also suggested having people volunteer to > assist in Remote Participation. Be good if people empower themselves to the > WG to see how they can help but more importantly, what Schombe is > highlighting to identify core teams at national and sub regional and > regional IGFs etc. They can also prepare in advance to scout out venues, > and access capacities and if the private sector got involved to sponsor > bandwidth etc etc. It will be good to fully activate the multistakeholder > collaborative approach in this regard. If there are institutions who can > volunteer to run trainings on moderation etc, that will be great. > >> In our mailing lists, we enrolled participants with skills and proven >> expertise can contribute actively to the topics scheduled. >> > > +1 > >> The mailing list has the advantage of allowing the actors to react >> wherever they may be. >> >> A very interesting proposal by Jovan is that each level of national IGF, >> it is proposed that people can be trained to the moderation of discussion >> for RP. >> >> These individuals trained can also help to summarize the discussion by >> including the observations at the local level. >> >> Absolutely, it is good to work towards this. If there are a group of >> people who are interested to set up an ad hoc group to discuss offline how >> to tease out options etc and bring back to the list for feedback and with >> most of us spread across the various regions, we should be able to advocate >> "meaningful participation" in a more cohesive manner that enables equality >> in participation for both onsite and offsite participants. >> > > > >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >> >> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 >> email : b.schombe at gmail.com >> skype : b.schombe >> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >> Site Web : www.ticafrica.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2012/2/22 Ginger Paque >> >>> Dear Jovan, De, Anriette, all, >>> >>> I write this as a member of the IGF remote participation working group, >>> but not FOR the IGF RPWG. These are my views. >>> >>> I think that this discussion on RP strategy and policy is extremely >>> important, and should be a priority for the IGC and CS, as well as the >>> other IGF stakeholders and the IGF secretariat. In particular, a policy for >>> RP, including chairing and moderation, as noted by Anriette and Jovan, is >>> indispensable, as is, I reiterate, the need to institutionalize RP as an >>> integral part of the IGF meeting process, perhaps using Anriettes >>> suggestions as a foundation. As Anriette notes, a key element is the >>> presence of an on site remote moderator, a role usually played by a >>> volunteer (Avri, myself, Seiiti, maybe Bill Drake? I cannot remember... and >>> others) in preparatory meetings, and until now, coordinated by the RPWG in >>> formal IGF meetings. >>> >>> I have to admit, I was stunned by the lack of attention given to >>> implementation of RP during the OC last week, particularly given the >>> concern about similarly important details such as the venue/meeting room >>> difficulties. I wonder if this is because RP is assumed to be an >>> institutional part of the process, when in fact, it is not yet recognized >>> as such? Do we take it for granted? Is that why we were amazed and appalled >>> by the problems during the MAG meeting? I think those problems occurred >>> precisely because RP is not an institutional part of the meeting process. >>> RP is as indispensable as the live transcript has now become, and a remote >>> moderator is as important as other organizational positions to make it >>> work. >>> >>> Without an on site remote moderator, there is no interface between the >>> on site proceedings and the remote participation. No matter how hard the >>> chair tries, he/she cannot be omniscient, nor omnipotent, controlling >>> factors in the meeting room and on a global network. Remote panel >>> moderators as a required element of each IGF workshop has shown that this >>> role is indispensable. >>> >>> The RPWG has never had a 'budget'. Fortunately many of us find funding >>> for attendance at meetings for other activities, and are able to >>> collaborate on site. I was particularly fortunate to be able to play double >>> roles during my term as IGC co-coordinator and/or Diplo staff. For the most >>> part, we are self-funded, sharing expenses among us. The IGF RPWG have had >>> some funding from DiploFoundation, which was much appreciated. The host >>> country and IGF secretariat coordinate funding for tech (webcast, >>> equipment) at the meetings, but as you know, that is not an easy matter >>> nowadays. >>> >>> The IGF RPWG works to implement inclusive RP. We are purposely not a >>> dynamic coalition or formal group, because we prefer to prioritize work on >>> practical implementation, rather than policy and process. We are willing >>> and happy to collaborate in any way we can, particularly in training >>> materials, elaboration of guidelines and support of remote hubs. >>> >>> We plan to submit input to the IGF Secretariat, and will post a copy to >>> the IGC list as well for your feedback. >>> >>> Thanks to everyone who has paved the way for progress on Remote >>> Participation in the IGF--Jeremy, my present and past colleagues on the IGF >>> RPWG, and others who have long pointed out this need, have given important >>> impetus, and we must keep the forward momentum going! >>> >>> Saludos, Ginger >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> >>> On 22 February 2012 08:17, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Anriette for these key observations! The role of the chair is >>>> essential. Good news is that you pointed to a make-or-break point for RP. >>>> Bad news is that possibilities to improve it are limited. We should prepare >>>> guidelines for chairs (a good starting point could be RP Working Group >>>> guidelines for moderators). But we have to be aware of the limitations. >>>> >>>> The role of the chair is already demanding in face-to-face meetings, >>>> where he has to feel the room, give tempo to the flow (a musical talent >>>> helps), be aware of the "power of the unsaid" (quietness, absence, tacit >>>> communication). A good chair has ToR for "diplomatic superman": assertive >>>> but not dictatorial, open but not indiscrimante, , smart but not >>>> intellectually dominant, aware of details but not too pedantic, ...and the >>>> list can continue. He needs a emotional intelligence. Experience helps. >>>> Ultimately, he has to be credible. >>>> >>>> All of this makes training for chairing very difficult. I can confirm >>>> this, based on Diplo's 20 years of experience in diplomatic training. It is >>>> slightly easier in the formal diplomatic context where you can train chairs >>>> how to use procedural tools (although that could be a dangerous tool). >>>> >>>> What can we do for IGF chairs? >>>> - prepare guidelines as repository of collective wisdom with realistic >>>> expectations about their effectiveness >>>> - start nudging chairs towards a new practice: highlight good examples, >>>> where possible, select the most RP-friendly chair at the next IGF meeting, >>>> collect feedback and experience. Aldo, our resident contrarian, introduced >>>> the concept of nudging in our didactics. It works wonders! >>>> - increase awareness in remote hubs and the general IGF public about >>>> the role of the chair (pressure on this position, limited time management). >>>> >>>> Now a slight zoom out. I am a strong believer in incremental changes in >>>> social dynamics. The IGF RPWG has done an amazing job over the last 5 >>>> years. Marilia, Bernard, Ginger, Raquel, Cha, Rafik and others have made >>>> this possible. One of my images of the IGF meetings is seeing these people >>>> running between workshop rooms (logging kilometers of distance at every >>>> IGF). Ultimately, this is what makes RP at the IGF unique and successful. >>>> Technology is important, as we realised last week when it did not work >>>> well, but the human input is decisive. We were fortunate that the IGF >>>> secretariat and UN DESA were open to RP innovations. Every year the IGF >>>> RPWG started with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the >>>> meeting, they discuss with remote hubs, they nudge (again) people to >>>> participate, they liaison with the secretariat, they and the secretariat >>>> work behind the scenes.... >>>> >>>> I do not know why the IGF RPWG is quiet in this discussion. I know that >>>> they are modest (big achievements, low rhetoric), but they should speak out >>>> more for the sake of improvement. Ultimately, we should build on their >>>> experience. We, as the IGF community, have neglected to recognize * >>>> enough* the great success of RP and need to give it another push >>>> without making it too formal (a risk to kill innovation). RP at IGF 2.0 >>>> needs mix of recognition, funding (RPWG people are/were volunteers for work >>>> which is highly professional) and the ownership of the IGF community. >>>> >>>> I hope to hear from the working group people! More will follow on >>>> Anriette's idea for guidelines..... >>>> >>>> Regards, Jovan >>>> >>>> ******** >>>> >>>> *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> *****The latest from Diplo: * Learn about Internet governance and ICT >>>> policy: enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building >>>> Programme (more info ). >>>> >>>> On 2/22/12 8:47 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> Based on my observation at the meetings here in Geneva in the last week >>>> I think one of the main problems is that meeting chairs need to play a >>>> central role. >>>> >>>> >>>> This is partly covered by this text that is in the document below: >>>> >>>> Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >>>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >>>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >>>> >>>> We do need the guidelines.. but we also need more formality to elevate >>>> the status of RM. Meeting chairs should formally welcoming remote >>>> participants, naming them so that everyone who is physically present is >>>> aware that they are part of the meeting, and actively encouraging them >>>> to participate. >>>> >>>> Budgeting is also key. Does the RM working group have a draft budget >>>> that can be given to meeting organisers? They need to plan in advance >>>> for the additional expense involved. >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 21/02/12 23:10, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Sala and everyone, >>>> >>>> I would suggest one change to smooth the argument - move the fifth >>>> paragraph to follow the second - see below. >>>> >>>> Otherwise I still believe that we need to make the "we must have remote >>>> participation" argument as forcefully as possible, and with that in mind >>>> I would put the suggestions - the paragraphs that say 'how' in a >>>> separate statement. In this case the statement would close at paragraph >>>> 8, with paragraph 15 moved up as the conclusion. I haven't done that to >>>> the document because no one seems to agree with me :-) >>>> >>>> Best wishes to all and good luck to those on the front line in Geneva >>>> De >>>> >>>> 1. We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >>>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate >>>> the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, >>>> the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting >>>> this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >>>> >>>> 2. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >>>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible >>>> to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >>>> participation. >>>> >>>> 3 was 5. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >>>> host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all >>>> sessions and not just the Main Sessions. >>>> >>>> 4 was 3. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >>>> team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >>>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >>>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >>>> >>>> 5 was 4. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >>>> occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >>>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >>>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live >>>> transcript. >>>> >>>> 6. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >>>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >>>> than one function. >>>> >>>> 7. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >>>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >>>> work together to bring them about: >>>> >>>> · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants >>>> through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >>>> equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >>>> >>>> · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth >>>> to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance >>>> to enable greater interactions from offline participants. >>>> >>>> · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >>>> and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting >>>> hosts, facilitators and chairs. >>>> >>>> · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, >>>> with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >>>> through RP that will be available. >>>> >>>> · Always assigning exclusive remote participation >>>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and >>>> are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical >>>> participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). >>>> >>>> · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >>>> physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >>>> >>>> · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>>> >>>> · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >>>> as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting >>>> >>>> · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >>>> presentations access through RP. >>>> >>>> · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >>>> that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >>>> ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted >>>> to ensure improved remote participation processes. >>>> >>>> 8. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >>>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >>>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, >>>> and who wish to do so from a remote location. >>>> >>>> 9. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >>>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >>>> >>>> 10. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >>>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a >>>> reality. >>>> >>>> 11. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >>>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >>>> territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >>>> countries could access the IGF. >>>> >>>> 12. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >>>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>>> methodology. >>>> >>>> 13. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >>>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >>>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain a >>>> consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >>>> ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >>>> sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>>> >>>> 14. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >>>> also include the following:- >>>> >>>> · Outreach; >>>> >>>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>>> >>>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in >>>> a series of strategic roll out; >>>> >>>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can >>>> be better involved in the remote hubs etc >>>> >>>> 15. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >>>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >>>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 21 February 2012 15:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Thank you for your contributions and comments. As you can imagine, >>>> more than 48 hours has passed since putting the Statement to the >>>> list for feedback and rough consensus. We have tried as best as >>>> possible to include your comments into the Statement on the >>>> Workspace. Thank you Izumi for initiating the process and De for >>>> consolidating the text and numerous others who have contributed. >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >>>> >>>> The Civil Society members of the CSTD can alert others to the IGC >>>> statement. Whilst we are wrapping up the Statement to enable Izumi >>>> and Marilia to take our perspectives, we should encourage dialogue >>>> on how we can actively contribute in this area. >>>> >>>> If there are volunteers who want to be more involved perhaps you >>>> could engage in further dialogue on how to help out. I have copied >>>> the text below. >>>> >>>> Warm Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> URL: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/32 >>>> >>>> We would like to reiterate that remote participation is a crucial >>>> part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >>>> appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >>>> Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, >>>> and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to >>>> observers. >>>> >>>> The IGC believes that Remote Participation should be an integral >>>> part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >>>> impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without >>>> effective remote participation. >>>> >>>> We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team >>>> from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >>>> which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >>>> Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. >>>> >>>> However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >>>> with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >>>> morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote >>>> observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to >>>> live transcript. >>>> >>>> The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >>>> ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions >>>> and not just the Main Sessions. >>>> >>>> Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >>>> contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving >>>> more than one function. >>>> >>>> We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider >>>> the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, >>>> and work together to bring them about: >>>> >>>> * Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >>>> participants through planning meetings to give online and >>>> offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and >>>> contribute to meetings. >>>> >>>> * Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >>>> bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with >>>> hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from >>>> offline participants. >>>> >>>> * Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >>>> participation and its moderation and post session or meeting >>>> reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. >>>> >>>> * Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >>>> meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the >>>> opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. >>>> >>>> * Always assigning exclusive remote participation >>>> coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same >>>> time, and are responsible for interactions between the >>>> meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and >>>> the remote participants). >>>> >>>> * Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>>> participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for >>>> those physically present in Geneva and those observing the >>>> meeting remotely. >>>> >>>> * Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>>> participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>>> >>>> * Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as >>>> well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of >>>> coverage of the meeting >>>> >>>> * Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >>>> interactive presentations access through RP. >>>> >>>> * Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>>> representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil >>>> Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >>>> Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical >>>> elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote >>>> participation processes. >>>> >>>> Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face >>>> participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders >>>> from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >>>> meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. >>>> >>>> We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >>>> private sector in enhancing remote participation. >>>> >>>> We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >>>> outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote >>>> participation a reality. >>>> >>>> There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >>>> expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries >>>> and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of >>>> these countries could access the IGF. >>>> >>>> However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >>>> where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>>> methodology. >>>> >>>> The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >>>> bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >>>> redundancy options where back up generators are critical to maintain >>>> a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should >>>> also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >>>> capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>>> >>>> Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should >>>> also include the following:- >>>> >>>> · Outreach; >>>> >>>> · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>>> >>>> · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the >>>> IGF in a series of strategic roll out; >>>> >>>> · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments >>>> can be better involved in the remote hubs etc >>>> >>>> We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >>>> guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 >>>> WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Roland Perry >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> In message <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC- 4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org >>>> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0 at privaterra.org>>, >>>> at 11:21:13 on Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Robert Guerra >>>> > writes >>>> >>>> What type of assistance and/or support will be provided - >>>> well, hopefully we'll find out soon from the Secretariat >>>> and/or Google >>>> >>>> >>>> Do they have a product which competes with the current market >>>> leaders from Cisco and Adobe? What the IGF needs is something >>>> which works, of course - historically their tools have been >>>> allegedly very fussy about exactly what version of 'flash' or >>>> whatever you have installed, and that sort of thing is half the >>>> battle. >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 04:33:55 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:33:55 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much easier to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on the Statement Workspace as well: *STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE PARTICIPATION* We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet Governance Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last five years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind the scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We have seen how whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with extraordinary levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment that enables the spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and ultimately access. We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN DESA are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote Participation. Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with remote hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to make remote participation a reality. We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is a crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral part of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to sustain an inclusive global policy process without effective remote participation. We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to address the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be addressed[1] <#_ftn1>. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to ensure that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not just the Main Sessions. We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society Coordinator Vittorio Bertola. However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with the system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, (the second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively excluded because they had no access to live transcript. Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one function. We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work together to bring them about: · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an equal opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth to sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to enable greater interactions from offline participants. · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation and its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, facilitators and chairs. · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage through RP that will be available. ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators (who do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, the Chair and the remote participants). · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote participants to interact and engage in meetings. · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well as real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive presentations access through RP. · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to ensure the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to ensure improved remote participation processes. Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face participation, this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central role in creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote participation. We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation. We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these countries could access the IGF. However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture where remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested methodology. The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to sustain the volume of traffic from remote participation. Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also include the following:- · Outreach. · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the IGF in a series of strategic roll out. · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators whilst noting the limitations. · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and national, sub regional and regional IGFs. We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines and recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants prepared a draft of e-participation principles . *Ends * ------------------------------ [1] <#_ftnref1> http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sala, > I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching up > with reading the messages. > I am not clear which document you want me to send. > I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from > reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the > discussions today? > Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > De > > > On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Deirdre, >> >> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society component >> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >> >> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be >> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 04:43:26 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:43:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Comment below: On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much easier > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on the > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE > PARTICIPATION > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet Governance > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last five > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind the > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today.  We have seen how > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with extraordinary > levels of sacrifice and commitment.  It is this commitment that enables the > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and > ultimately access. > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN DESA > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote Participation. > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with remote > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to make > remote participation a reality. > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is a > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral part > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to sustain > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote participation. > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to address > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be > addressed[1]. > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to ensure > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not just > the Main Sessions. > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were made available through the IGF Website." I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) Thanks, Adam > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society Coordinator > Vittorio Bertola. > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with the > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, (the > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > >  Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one > function. > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work > together to bring them about: > > ·   Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an equal > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > ·   Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth to > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > ·   Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation and > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, > facilitators and chairs. > > ·   Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage through > RP that will be available. > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators (who > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for > interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, > the Chair and the remote participants). > > ·   Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > ·   Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > ·   Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well as > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting > > ·   Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP. > > ·   Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to ensure > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to ensure > improved remote participation processes. > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face participation, > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central role in > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote > participation. > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > countries could access the IGF. > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture where > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested methodology. > >  The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to sustain > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also > include the following:- > > ·         Outreach. > > ·         Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > ·         Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > ·         Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators whilst > noting the limitations. > > ·         Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > ·         Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and national, > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines and > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > Ends > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: >> >> Dear Sala, >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching up >> with reading the messages. >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the >> discussions today? >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >> De >> >> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Deirdre, >>> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society component >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >>> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Feb 23 04:47:04 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:47:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Warrantless Surveillance?: Gov't Subpoenas OWS Activist's Twitter Records Message-ID: <4F460B18.2010900@gmail.com> Published on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 by Common Dreams Warrantless Surveillance?: Gov't Subpoenas OWS Activist's Twitter Records Malcolm Harris: Subpoena dangerous because it might "produce a chilling effect and discourage people from using Twitter while protesting." - Common Dreams staff A government subpoena requesting an Occupy Wall Street protester's Twitter records raises questions about the government's use of warrantless surveillance and attempts at squashing activists' use of social media. Hanni Fakhoury of *EFF* explains the case involving request for Malcolm Harris' Twitter records: On October 1, 2011, over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge . Most of the protesters, including Malcolm Harris , were charged with the mundane crime of disorderly conduct , a "violation" under New York law that has a maximum punishment of 15 days in jail or a $250 fine . And yet on the basis of a charge no more consequential than speeding ticket, the New York City District Attorney's office sent a poorly worded subpoena to Twitter requesting "any and all user information, including email address, as well as any and all tweets posted for the period of 9/15/2011-12/31/2011" regarding Mr. Harris' Twitter account, @destructuremal. Unsurprisingly, the government wanted to keep it quiet, but thankfully Twitter didn't listen. Instead, as it has consistently warned law enforcement , Twitter notified Mr. Harris, who through his lawyer, Martin Stolar of the National Lawyers Guild , has moved to challenge the subpoena in court. The subpoena is astonishing not only for its poor grammar, but also for the breadth of information the government wants for a trivial crime that hardly requires it. The government's request that Twitter hand over Tweets is unlikely to succeed because consistent with the Stored Communications Act , Twitter releases "contents of communication" (effectively Tweets and private messages between Twitter users) only with a search warrant . In any event, Mr. Harris' account is "public", meaning the government could obtain Tweets simply by checking out Mr. Harris' Twitter feed. Plus, requesting Tweets only highlights the absurdity of the entire situation: why would the government need Tweets from both before and after the October 1 protest to prove he was obstructing traffic on the bridge? In any event, government fishing expeditions like this raise serious First Amendment concerns. Mr. Harris was very outspoken about his support of and involvement in the Occupy Wall Street movement. With this overbroad subpoena, the government would be able to learn about who Mr. Harris was communicating with for an extensive period of time not only through Tweets, but through direct messages. And with the government's request for all email addresses associated with @destructuremal, they could subpoena Mr. Harris' email provider to get even more information about who he communicated with. The First Amendment shouldn't be trampled with only an expansive subpoena in a case that barely registers as "criminal." Given that much of Mr. Harris' Twitter information (like Tweets and followers) is already public, it's very likely that the government was really after something else: location data . By attempting to subpoena these records, the government can get around the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against warrantless searches by requesting information that includes IP addresses. Twitter keeps track of IP address information regarding every time a person logged into Twitter, as well as the IP address information related to a Twitter user's direct messages to other users, and the date and time information related to these log ins and direct messages. Armed with IP addresses, the government -- without a warrant -- can go to an ISP to determine who was assigned that particular IP address. And if that person connected on a mobile device -- which is where the majority of Twitter users access their accounts -- the ISP will hand over to the government the specific cell tower (and its corresponding geographic location) which that person used to access Twitter. This allows the government to piece together a map of where a person physically is when he opens Twitter on his smartphone, sends a direct message to a friend, or Tweets. And with that information, the government could get a record of Mr. Harris' movement over the three months it requested from Twitter. Its no surprise then that the government singled out Mr. Harris for this request: he currently has over 1,500 followers and 7,200 Tweets. Allowing the government to gets its hands on this data with nothing more than an administrative subpoena renders the Fourth Amendment meaningless. Only with the protection of a search warrant, and the heightened judicial supervision that comes along with it, can the voracious appetite of law enforcement be curbed. As we've consistently argued , the Fourth Amendment protects this information. Occupy Wall Street October 1st(photo: Adrian Kinloch) Writing on *Reuters* earlier this month, Harris says the ultimate goal of the subpoena is to discourage activists from using Twitter as a platform: The biggest danger that comes from this subpoena isn't that it'll help convict me --- I don't think a judge will have any trouble understanding what happened on the bridge --- but that it will produce a chilling effect and discourage people from using Twitter while protesting. It's a win-win for prosecutors: Either they use Twitter archives to build cases against demonstrators, or they scare us away from using the platform. Wildly casting prosecutorial nets around the Twittersphere and hoping to bring in something about anything is panicked behavior not fit for a government that represents all its people, including its dissenters. At the very least the federal government can make sure U.S. companies treat dissenters in Boston or Oakland the way it ensures they're treated in Tehran or Damascus. Reports from Cairo to London to New York show that social media have served an important, sometimes vital, role in helping demonstrators keep safe and organize effectively. That's why the State Department intervened in Iran in 2009, and that's why the District Attorney's office is requesting my records now. Harris spoke with *RT* about the Twitter subpoena: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: screen_shot_2012-02-22_at_11.33.54_am_0.png Type: image/png Size: 215362 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6202490380_b82c1ceeec.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 150792 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 Feb 23 04:57:32 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:57:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] Warrantless Surveillance?: Gov't Subpoenas OWS Activist's Twitter Records In-Reply-To: <4F460B18.2010900@gmail.com> References: <4F460B18.2010900@gmail.com> Message-ID: omg seriously subpeonaing twitter...and in the US too, the world is really going topsy turvy. On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Published on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 by Common Dreams > Warrantless Surveillance?: Gov't Subpoenas OWS Activist's Twitter Records > Malcolm Harris: Subpoena dangerous because it might "produce a chilling > effect and discourage people from using Twitter while protesting." > - Common Dreams staff > > A government subpoena requesting an Occupy Wall Street protester's Twitter > records raises questions about the government's use of warrantless > surveillance and attempts at squashing activists' use of social media. > > Hanni Fakhoury of *EFF* explainsthe case involving request for Malcolm Harris' Twitter records: > > On October 1, 2011, over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested > on the Brooklyn Bridge. > Most of the protesters, including Malcolm Harris, > were charged with the mundane crime of disorderly conduct, > a "violation" under New York law that has a maximum punishment of 15 days > in jail or a $250 fine > . > > And yet on the basis of a charge no more consequential than speeding > ticket, the New York City District Attorney's office sent a poorly worded > subpoena to Twitter requesting "any and all user information, including email > address, as well as any and all tweets posted for the period of > 9/15/2011-12/31/2011" regarding Mr. Harris' Twitter account, > @destructuremal. Unsurprisingly, the government wanted to keep it quiet, > but thankfully Twitter didn't listen. Instead, as it has consistently > warned law enforcement, > Twitter notified Mr. Harris, who through his lawyer, Martin Stolar of the National > Lawyers Guild , has moved to challenge the subpoenain court. > > The subpoena is astonishing not only for its poor grammar, but also for > the breadth of information the government wants for a trivial crime that > hardly requires it. The government's request that Twitter hand over Tweets > is unlikely to succeed because consistent with the Stored Communications > Act , > Twitter releases "contents of communication" (effectively Tweets and > private messages between Twitter users) only with a search warrant. > In any event, Mr. Harris' account is "public", meaning the government could > obtain Tweets simply by checking out Mr. Harris' Twitter feed. Plus, > requesting Tweets only highlights the absurdity of the entire situation: > why would the government need Tweets from both before and after the October > 1 protest to prove he was obstructing traffic on the bridge? In any event, > government fishing expeditions like this raise serious First Amendment > concerns. Mr. Harris was very outspoken about his support of and > involvement in the Occupy Wall Street movement. With this overbroad > subpoena, the government would be able to learn about who Mr. Harris was > communicating with for an extensive period of time not only through Tweets, > but through direct messages. And with the government's request for all > email addresses associated with @destructuremal, they could subpoena Mr. > Harris' email provider to get even more information about who he > communicated with. The First Amendment shouldn't be trampled with only an > expansive subpoena in a case that barely registers as "criminal." > > Given that much of Mr. Harris' Twitter information (like Tweets and > followers) is already public, it's very likely that the government was > really after something else: location data. > By attempting to subpoena these records, the government can get around the > Fourth Amendment's prohibition against warrantless searches by requesting > information that includes IP addresses. Twitter keeps track of IP address > information regarding every time a person logged into Twitter, as well as > the IP address information related to a Twitter user's direct messages to > other users, and the date and time information related to these log ins and > direct messages. Armed with IP addresses, the government -- without a > warrant -- can go to an ISP to determine who was assigned that particular > IP address. And if that person connected on a mobile device -- which is > where the majorityof Twitter users access their accounts -- the ISP will hand over to the > government the specific cell tower (and its corresponding geographic > location) which that person used to access Twitter. This allows the > government to piece together a map of where a person physically is when he > opens Twitter on his smartphone, sends a direct message to a friend, or > Tweets. And with that information, the government could get a record of Mr. > Harris' movement over the three months it requested from Twitter. Its no > surprise then that the government singled out Mr. Harris for this request: > he currently has over 1,500 followers and 7,200 Tweets. > > Allowing the government to gets its hands on this data with nothing more > than an administrative subpoena renders the Fourth Amendment meaningless. > Only with the protection of a search warrant, and the heightened judicial > supervision that comes along with it, can the voracious appetite of law > enforcement be curbed. As we've consistently argued, > the Fourth Amendment protects this information. > > [image: Occupy Wall Street October 1st](photo: Adrian Kinloch) > > Writing on *Reuters* earlier this month, Harris saysthe ultimate goal of the subpoena is to discourage activists from using > Twitter as a platform: > > The biggest danger that comes from this subpoena isn’t that it’ll help > convict me — I don’t think a judge will have any trouble understanding what > happened on the bridge — but that it will produce a chilling effect and > discourage people from using Twitter while protesting. It’s a win-win for > prosecutors: Either they use Twitter archives to build cases against > demonstrators, or they scare us away from using the platform. > > Wildly casting prosecutorial nets around the Twittersphere and hoping to > bring in something about anything is panicked behavior not fit for a > government that represents all its people, including its dissenters. At the > very least the federal government can make sure U.S. companies treat > dissenters in Boston or Oakland the way it ensures they’re treated in > Tehran or Damascus. > > Reports from Cairo to London to New York show that social media have > served an important, sometimes vital, role in helping demonstrators keep > safe and organize effectively. That’s why the State Department intervened > in Iran in 2009, and that’s why the District Attorney’s office is > requesting my records now. > > Harris spoke with *RT* about the Twitter subpoena: > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: screen_shot_2012-02-22_at_11.33.54_am_0.png Type: image/png Size: 215362 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6202490380_b82c1ceeec.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 150792 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 Thu Feb 23 05:05:35 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:05:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Warrantless Surveillance?: Gov't Subpoenas OWS Activist's Twitter Records In-Reply-To: References: <4F460B18.2010900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F460F6F.6070007@gmail.com> Why are you surprised that this would happen in the US? Surely you did not get caught up in the right and left wing US exceptionalism on this list? There is the Patriot Act and numerous other violations... including getting access to SWIFT data on almost every international financial transaction as well as phone operators being let off the hook for not protecting their USers phone records etc etc... when there are double standards applied to the likes of the US vs the debates on China we see the ugliness of civil society and the scholasticism of reason... Things are changing now on this list, but Critical Internet Resources under the "control" of more transparent/accountable bodies may be a useful approach.. but then as NOW the computer professional jingoism will come into play - if it ain't broke don't fix it... On 2012/02/23 11:57 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > omg seriously subpeonaing twitter...and in the US too, the world is > really going topsy turvy. > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > Published on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 by Common Dreams > > > > Warrantless Surveillance?: Gov't Subpoenas OWS Activist's > Twitter Records > > > Malcolm Harris: Subpoena dangerous because it might "produce > a chilling effect and discourage people from using Twitter > while protesting." > > - Common Dreams staff > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 05:12:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 22:12:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Warrantless Surveillance?: Gov't Subpoenas OWS Activist's Twitter Records In-Reply-To: <4F460F6F.6070007@gmail.com> References: <4F460B18.2010900@gmail.com> <4F460F6F.6070007@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Why are you surprised that this would happen in the US? Surely you did > not get caught up in the right and left wing US exceptionalism on this list? > lol > > There is the Patriot Act and numerous other violations... including > getting access to SWIFT data on almost every international financial > transaction as well as phone operators being let off the hook for not > protecting their USers phone records etc etc... when there are double > standards applied to the likes of the US vs the debates on China we see the > ugliness of civil society and the scholasticism of reason... > The numerous treaties in place enables extraordinary cross border access to information that encroaches privacy etc. Question is, how much is being whittled away and at what pace? > > Things are changing now on this list, but Critical Internet Resources > under the "control" of more transparent/accountable bodies may be a useful > approach.. > I agree. Be good for you to suggest this on the threads in relation to the MAG consultation so they can factor it into their planning. > but then as NOW the computer professional jingoism will come into play - > if it ain't broke don't fix it... > > On 2012/02/23 11:57 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > omg seriously subpeonaing twitter...and in the US too, the world is really > going topsy turvy. > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> Published on Wednesday, February 22, 2012 by Common Dreams >> Warrantless Surveillance?: Gov't Subpoenas OWS Activist's Twitter Records >> Malcolm Harris: Subpoena dangerous because it might "produce a chilling >> effect and discourage people from using Twitter while protesting." >> - Common Dreams staff >> > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 05:27:28 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:27:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Warrantless Surveillance?: Gov't Subpoenas OWS Activist's Twitter Records In-Reply-To: References: <4F460B18.2010900@gmail.com> <4F460F6F.6070007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F461490.4060404@gmail.com> Perhaps CIR needs to be on the agenda, but there needs to be a push from others as well... otherwise one is better at just ranting... and hoping Enhanced Cooperation works out... This is the point about reason that I was raising. It is NOT enough in these fora... look through some of the debate Parminder had with people about substantive issues... reason was a knife taken to a gunfight, notwithstanding that people from developing countries have the right to determine the terms of their issues in ANY way they feel... solidarity ab initio is a whimsical thing... and the cherry on the top in many of these "discussions" was that First and Third world are anachronistic concepts... but things are changing post Financial Crisis... So in this space I prefer the position of outsider, as there are enough insiders... On 2012/02/23 12:12 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 05:31:26 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:31:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Top Social Media Websites Caught Censoring Controversial Content Message-ID: <4F46157E.2020700@gmail.com> Top Social Media Websites Caught Censoring Controversial Content George Washington's picture Submitted by George Washington on 02/23/2012 02:07 -0500 Facebook pays low-wage foreign workers to delete certain content based upon a censorship list . For example, Facebook deletes accounts created by Palestinian resistance groups. Digg was caught censoring stories which were controversial or too critical of the government. See this and this . Now, even social media site Reddit -- which helped launch the anti-Sopa Internet blackout and publicize GoDaddy's slimy Sopa support -- is doing the same thing. As just one example, posts from this website are being censored by Reddit. Specifically, a friend of this site who has submitted stories to Reddit has received the following messages of rejection from a Reddit moderator named davidreiss666: from *davidreiss666 via /r/worldnews/* WashingtonBlog is not something we consider a good source for r/Worldnews. http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/top-social-media-websites-caught-censoring-controversial-content?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-7813.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1527 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 05:47:20 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:17:20 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Adam said: I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and exciting. I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations. If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral part of the IGF meeting process. Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different approach, with points I have made above. Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so I have not done so. Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote participation! Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig *The latest from Diplo....*From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses** On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake wrote: > Comment below: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much > easier > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on the > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE > > PARTICIPATION > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet > Governance > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last > five > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind the > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We have seen > how > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with > extraordinary > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment that enables > the > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and > > ultimately access. > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN > DESA > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > Participation. > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with > remote > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to make > > remote participation a reality. > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is a > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and > the > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral > part > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to > sustain > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > participation. > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to address > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be > > addressed[1]. > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to ensure > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not just > > the Main Sessions. > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were > made available through the IGF Website." > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society > Coordinator > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with > the > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, > (the > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in > contacting > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one > > function. > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work > > together to bring them about: > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants > > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an > equal > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth > to > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation > and > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage > through > > RP that will be available. > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators > (who > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for > > interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current speaker, > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically > present > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well > as > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > > presentations access through RP. > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society > that > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to ensure > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to > ensure > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > -face participation, > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who > wish > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central role > in > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote > > participation. > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible > outcomes to > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture > where > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested methodology. > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to > sustain > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also > > include the following:- > > > > · Outreach. > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators whilst > > noting the limitations. > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and > governments > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and > national, > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines > and > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > wrote: > >> > >> Dear Sala, > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching up > >> with reading the messages. > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the > >> discussions today? > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > >> De > >> > >> > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Deirdre, > >>> > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society > component > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > >>> > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 06:20:15 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:20:15 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9695CC3F-332F-44B6-88F3-976A12739D5F@cafonso.ca> Frankly, Adam, this is ridiculous. Please do recognize the shortcomings of this nomination process. BTW, we (APC) know who we are. frt rgds --c.a. sent from a dumbphone On 23/02/2012, at 05:31, Adam Peake wrote: > Does APC support the IGF NomCom's selections or is this a one-way > street? APC is an important organization, its members have > contributed enormously to the IGF (and WSIS and WGIG etc.) but it > isn't the only cs player in this space. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Sala, >> >> It’s not improper for the IGC to support nominees submitted by other >> organisations, or positions advocated by other organisations. The Nomcom is >> only responsible for submitting and deciding on IGC nominees – I am not >> suggesting at all that we change that or add additional names to IGC >> nominations. I agree that would be improper. However I don’t see why we >> shouldn’t express support for nominees of other organisations. >> >> The only reason we are discussing this at all is because of some sort of >> administrative stuff up that I don’t understand yet. I appreciate that the >> Nomcom has attempted to make amends at the last moment but the simple fact >> is that due to some process issue some very good names were not considered. >> >> Those good names of civil society people have been forwarded anyway. I think >> it is proper to indicate to the powers that be that we are supportive of >> those names being considered in addition to those IGC submitted, >> particularly in the circumstance where the number of names submitted by IGC >> is less than the number of vacancies that are out there to be filled. >> >> Ian >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 >> To: Ian Peter >> Cc: , Thomas Lowenhaupt >> , Valeria Betancourt , >> , Jacqueline Morris , >> shaila mistry , Anriette Esterhuysen >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without interference >> from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add names must be their >> decision solely and this is to preserve some level of independence. Once the >> NomCom makes the selection, the recommendations are then put forward by the >> IGC through the coordinators the Secretariat. In this case, one of the >> Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself from dealing with this >> administrative issue. >> >> For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list of Nominees >> would be improper unless the APC list was within the basket of nominees that >> they were considering and decide on their own accord that they accept the >> candidates and list them with other nominees. In this instance, APC has >> withdrawn its list of candidates from the NomCom and the NomCom should only >> review the list of candidates within its current basket. >> >> Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways we can >> improve the processes etc. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> All, >> >> As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the relevant >> UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, IGC is >> also supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people on this >> list would support such an action. >> >> (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn >> from the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that >> need further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC expressed >> support for the APC nominees. That’s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and >> may be our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > > >> Reply-To: > >, Thomas Lowenhaupt >> > >> >> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 >> To: Valeria Betancourt > >> Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > >, > >, Jacqueline Morris >> >, shaila mistry >> >, Anriette Esterhuysen >> >, >> > >> >> Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application >> >> >> All, >> >> The NomCom has been discussing adding APC names to the list to be >> submitted, and not subtracting those whom we had already selected, agreeing >> this would be unkind and unfair. >> >> If this agreeable, let us know. >> >> Best, >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >> >> >> Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC >> NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret that >> the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first >> phase of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened as this >> is not fair to the current list of nominees. We have submitted our names >> directly to the Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its >> procedures in the future. >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> Valeria >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Feb 23 06:25:19 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:25:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: (message from Adam Peake on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:43:26 +0900) References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <20120223112519.92E3B437A@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were > made available through the IGF Website." This is not quite accurate. The webcasting from workshop 21 (Mapping Internet Governance) was totally non-functioning, and there was also no usable real-time transcription from this workshop. In fact, to this day, on http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011-igf-nairobi/transcripts there is in the middle of all the links to the various workshop transcripts a non-link for this workshop. (The IGF secretariat has promised to make a transcript available from a recording that apparantly exists somewhere, but so far neither the recording nor the transcript have been made available.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 06:28:15 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:28:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: With reference to what Adam wrote - I know that my intention in pointing to the problems on the second morning of the OPEN (my emphasis) MAG meeting was to support with evidence the need to institutionalise RP, rather than to make a petty complaint after the fact. And with the greatest possible respect to the Nairobi chair I was at the other end of that communication process and it really wasn't functioning as that description suggests. I 'attended' every day but which workshops I attended was controlled by what I could get connected to, and on the final day that was not very much at all. This is not to blame anyone - I believe that the electricity supply was a large part of that problem. Rather it is to make the point that when there is a recognised and accepted fixed obligation and responsibility to facilitate RP, then making it happen gets considerably more priority. Sometimes it just won't work, but for more and more of the time we will be able to rely on it. So I hope that Ginger will submit her alternative text. Deirdre On 23 February 2012 06:47, Ginger Paque wrote: > Adam said: > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and > exciting. > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and > illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during > last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. > Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and > more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they > boil down to just one: > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of a > remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote > participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an > automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion > of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the > presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one > of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have > 'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation > and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers > and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the > privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in > the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might ask > the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might > include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and > process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations. > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG > catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the > IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever > appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be > institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral > part of the IGF meeting process. > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been > started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the > different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one > frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress > the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to > energize forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better > strategy and focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made > comments on the existing statement, because I would re-write it completely, > with a different approach, with points I have made above. > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have > the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so > I have not done so. > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > participation! > > Ginger > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > *The latest from Diplo....*From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most > exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May 2012: > *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and *E-diplomacy*. > Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses** > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Comment below: >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much >> easier >> > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, >> > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. >> > >> > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on >> the >> > Statement Workspace as well: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE >> > PARTICIPATION >> > >> > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet >> Governance >> > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last >> five >> > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind the >> > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We have seen >> how >> > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with >> extraordinary >> > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment that enables >> the >> > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and >> > ultimately access. >> > >> > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN >> DESA >> > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote >> Participation. >> > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote >> > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with >> remote >> > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to make >> > remote participation a reality. >> > >> > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is a >> > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >> > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and >> the >> > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >> > >> > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >> part >> > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to >> sustain >> > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >> participation. >> > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to >> address >> > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be >> > addressed[1]. >> > >> > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >> ensure >> > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not >> just >> > the Main Sessions. >> > >> >> from the Nairobi chair's summary document: >> >> "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from >> the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop >> meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time >> transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were >> made available through the IGF Website." >> >> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from >> > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was >> > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society >> Coordinator >> > Vittorio Bertola. >> > >> > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >> with the >> > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, >> (the >> > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively >> > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. >> > >> > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting >> > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one >> > function. >> > >> > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the >> > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >> work >> > together to bring them about: >> > >> > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants >> > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >> equal >> > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >> > >> > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> bandwidth to >> > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to >> > enable greater interactions from offline participants. >> > >> > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and >> > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, >> > facilitators and chairs. >> > >> > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, >> > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >> through >> > RP that will be available. >> > >> > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators >> (who >> > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for >> > interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current >> speaker, >> > the Chair and the remote participants). >> > >> > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants >> > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically >> present >> > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> > >> > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> > participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> > >> > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >> as >> > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting >> > >> > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> > presentations access through RP. >> > >> > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >> that >> > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >> ensure >> > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to >> ensure >> > improved remote participation processes. >> > >> > Because only limited funds are available for face- to >> -face participation, >> > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all >> > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who >> wish >> > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central >> role in >> > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote >> > participation. >> > >> > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private >> > sector in enhancing remote participation. >> > >> > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to >> > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. >> > >> > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >> > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >> > countries could access the IGF. >> > >> > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where >> > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> > >> > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a >> > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >> > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >> sustain >> > the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> > >> > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also >> > include the following:- >> > >> > · Outreach. >> > >> > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> > >> > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before >> the >> > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. >> > >> > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators >> whilst >> > noting the limitations. >> > >> > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and >> governments >> > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. >> > >> > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and >> national, >> > sub regional and regional IGFs. >> > >> > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines >> and >> > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants >> > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. >> > >> > Ends >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > >> > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Sala, >> >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching up >> >> with reading the messages. >> >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >> >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from >> >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the >> >> discussions today? >> >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >> >> De >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Dear Deirdre, >> >>> >> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society >> component >> >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >> >>> >> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >> >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be >> >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >> >>> >> >>> Kind Regards, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>> >> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > >> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Feb 23 06:57:40 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 12:57:40 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: (message from Ginger Paque on Thu, 23 Feb 2012 06:17:20 -0430) References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <20120223115740.E710C437A@quill.bollow.ch> Ginger Paque wrote: > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and > exciting. > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and > illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during > last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. > Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and > more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they > boil down to just one: > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. I totally agree in many respects. And in the context of this discussion, which is about a specific planned IGC statement, I have no objection when those who have been following the developments more closely suggest that it would be better to avoid including a mention of the specific recent glitches. However I think that it is important to emphasize that appropriate procedures for addressing problems of technical glitches need to be established. In my opinion, there should be a transparent process of determining and reporting accurately to what extent the RP infrastructure and processes have been working or not, and of determining the causes of any glitches that have occurred, and improving processes and infrastructure with the aim of preventing any reoccurrance of such glitches. I would view this as important and integral aspects of institutionalizing RP in the meeting processes. It is possible to create highly reliable processes and highly reliable infrastructure, but only if the will to do so is there. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Feb 23 07:30:44 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:30:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Deirdre, there already is "a recognised and accepted fixed obligation and responsibility to facilitate RP" It's a priority. It's in the program paper. There are staff hired to facilite, I believe it's in the host country agreement. Not sure what more you want? But you're right, the UN's power did go out on the final afternoon and that blew the Internet connectivity. But power's IT4D :-) Adam On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > With reference to what Adam wrote - I know that my intention in pointing to > the problems on the second morning of the OPEN (my emphasis) MAG meeting was > to support   with evidence the need to institutionalise RP, rather than to > make a petty complaint after the fact. > > And with the greatest possible respect to the Nairobi chair I was at the > other end of that communication process and it really wasn't functioning as > that description suggests. I 'attended' every day but which workshops I > attended was controlled by what I could get connected to, and on the final > day that was not very much at all. > > This is not to blame anyone - I believe that the electricity supply was a > large part of that problem. Rather it is to make the point that when there > is a recognised and accepted fixed obligation and responsibility to > facilitate RP, then making it happen gets considerably more priority. > Sometimes it just won't work, but for more and more of the time we will be > able to rely on it. > > So I hope that Ginger will submit her alternative text. > > Deirdre > > > On 23 February 2012 06:47, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Adam said: >> >> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >> >> I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and >> exciting. >> >> I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and >> illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during >> last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. >> Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and >> more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they >> boil down to just one: >> >> RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. >> >> The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of a >> remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote >> participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an >> automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion >> of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the >> presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one >> of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have >> 'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation >> and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers >> and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of >> volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the >> privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in the >> IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. >> >> If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might ask >> the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. >> >> If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might >> include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and >> process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations. >> >> If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG >> catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the >> IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever >> appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. >> >> I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be >> institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral >> part of the IGF meeting process. >> >> Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been >> started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the >> different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one >> frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress >> the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to energize >> forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better strategy and >> focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made comments on the >> existing statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different >> approach, with points I have made above. >> >> Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have >> the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so I >> have not done so. >> >> Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote >> participation! >> >> Ginger >> >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> Diplo Foundation >> >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> The latest from Diplo....From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most >> exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May >> 2012: Bilateral Diplomacy, Diplomacy of Small States, and E-diplomacy. >> Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses >> >> >> >> On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Comment below: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> > Dear All, >>> > >>> > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much >>> > easier >>> > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, >>> > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. >>> > >>> > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on >>> > the >>> > Statement Workspace as well: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE >>> > PARTICIPATION >>> > >>> > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet >>> > Governance >>> > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last >>> > five >>> > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind >>> > the >>> > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today.  We have seen >>> > how >>> > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with >>> > extraordinary >>> > levels of sacrifice and commitment.  It is this commitment that enables >>> > the >>> > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and >>> > ultimately access. >>> > >>> > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN >>> > DESA >>> > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote >>> > Participation. >>> > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote >>> > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with >>> > remote >>> > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to >>> > make >>> > remote participation a reality. >>> > >>> > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is >>> > a >>> > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >>> > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >>> > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and >>> > the >>> > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >>> > >>> > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >>> > part >>> > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to >>> > sustain >>> > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >>> > participation. >>> > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to >>> > address >>> > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be >>> > addressed[1]. >>> > >>> > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >>> > ensure >>> > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not >>> > just >>> > the Main Sessions. >>> > >>> >>> from the Nairobi chair's summary document: >>> >>> "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from >>> the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop >>> meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time >>> transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were >>> made available through the IGF Website." >>> >>> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >>> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >>> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >>> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >>> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from >>> > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was >>> > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society >>> > Coordinator >>> > Vittorio Bertola. >>> > >>> > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >>> > with the >>> > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, >>> > (the >>> > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively >>> > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. >>> > >>> >  Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >>> > contacting >>> > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one >>> > function. >>> > >>> > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the >>> > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >>> > work >>> > together to bring them about: >>> > >>> > ·   Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >>> > participants >>> > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >>> > equal >>> > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >>> > >>> > ·   Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >>> > bandwidth to >>> > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to >>> > enable greater interactions from offline participants. >>> > >>> > ·   Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >>> > and >>> > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, >>> > facilitators and chairs. >>> > >>> > ·   Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >>> > meetings, >>> > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >>> > through >>> > RP that will be available. >>> > >>> > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators >>> > (who >>> > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for >>> > interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current >>> > speaker, >>> > the Chair and the remote participants). >>> > >>> > ·   Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>> > participants >>> > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically >>> > present >>> > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >>> > >>> > ·   Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>> > participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>> > >>> > ·   Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >>> > as >>> > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the >>> > meeting >>> > >>> > ·   Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >>> > presentations access through RP. >>> > >>> > ·   Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>> > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >>> > that >>> > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >>> > ensure >>> > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to >>> > ensure >>> > improved remote participation processes. >>> > >>> > Because only limited funds are available for face- to >>> > -face participation, >>> > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all >>> > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who >>> > wish >>> > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central >>> > role in >>> > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote >>> > participation. >>> > >>> > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >>> > private >>> > sector in enhancing remote participation. >>> > >>> > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >>> > outcomes to >>> > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. >>> > >>> > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >>> > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >>> > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >>> > countries could access the IGF. >>> > >>> > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >>> > where >>> > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>> > methodology. >>> > >>> >  The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >>> > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >>> > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a >>> > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >>> > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >>> > sustain >>> > the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>> > >>> > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also >>> > include the following:- >>> > >>> > ·         Outreach. >>> > >>> > ·         Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>> > >>> > ·         Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before >>> > the >>> > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. >>> > >>> > ·         Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators >>> > whilst >>> > noting the limitations. >>> > >>> > ·         Identifying how the private sector, civil society and >>> > governments >>> > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. >>> > >>> > ·         Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and >>> > national, >>> > sub regional and regional IGFs. >>> > >>> > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines >>> > and >>> > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 >>> > participants >>> > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. >>> > >>> > Ends >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ________________________________ >>> > >>> > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Dear Sala, >>> >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching >>> >> up >>> >> with reading the messages. >>> >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >>> >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from >>> >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the >>> >> discussions today? >>> >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >>> >> De >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Deirdre, >>> >>> >>> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society >>> >>> component >>> >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >>> >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also >>> >>> be >>> >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> >> William >>> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> > >>> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> > Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Feb 23 08:36:31 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:36:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> With reference to the RP supported by the Government, it should be to facilitate community to participate through the RP. However, there is another reverse influence on the support facility (I think). For example, travel support seeking MAG members, who normally apply to their Governments (Ministry of IT or Telecom) to grant funds for air travel and stay, now these members, may not be accommodated easily, and emphasizing in convincing for Remote Participation instead to participate physically/ F2F in the IGF/CSTD related meeting. >________________________________ > From: Adam Peake >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012, 17:30 >Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation > >Deirdre, there already is "a recognised and accepted fixed obligation >and responsibility to >facilitate RP" > >It's a priority.  It's in the program paper.  There are staff hired to >facilite, I believe it's in the host country agreement.  Not sure what >more you want? > >But you're right, the UN's power did go out on the final afternoon and >that blew the Internet connectivity. But power's IT4D :-) > >Adam > > >On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: >> With reference to what Adam wrote - I know that my intention in pointing to >> the problems on the second morning of the OPEN (my emphasis) MAG meeting was >> to support   with evidence the need to institutionalise RP, rather than to >> make a petty complaint after the fact. >> >> And with the greatest possible respect to the Nairobi chair I was at the >> other end of that communication process and it really wasn't functioning as >> that description suggests. I 'attended' every day but which workshops I >> attended was controlled by what I could get connected to, and on the final >> day that was not very much at all. >> >> This is not to blame anyone - I believe that the electricity supply was a >> large part of that problem. Rather it is to make the point that when there >> is a recognised and accepted fixed obligation and responsibility to >> facilitate RP, then making it happen gets considerably more priority. >> Sometimes it just won't work, but for more and more of the time we will be >> able to rely on it. >> >> So I hope that Ginger will submit her alternative text. >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 23 February 2012 06:47, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> Adam said: >>> >>> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >>> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >>> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >>> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >>> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >>> >>> I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and >>> exciting. >>> >>> I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and >>> illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during >>> last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. >>> Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and >>> more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they >>> boil down to just one: >>> >>> RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. >>> >>> The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of a >>> remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote >>> participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an >>> automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion >>> of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the >>> presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one >>> of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have >>> 'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation >>> and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers >>> and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of >>> volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the >>> privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in the >>> IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. >>> >>> If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might ask >>> the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. >>> >>> If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might >>> include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and >>> process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations. >>> >>> If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG >>> catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the >>> IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever >>> appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. >>> >>> I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be >>> institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral >>> part of the IGF meeting process. >>> >>> Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been >>> started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the >>> different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one >>> frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress >>> the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to energize >>> forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better strategy and >>> focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made comments on the >>> existing statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different >>> approach, with points I have made above. >>> >>> Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have >>> the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so I >>> have not done so. >>> >>> Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote >>> participation! >>> >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> Diplo Foundation >>> >>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> The latest from Diplo....From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most >>> exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May >>> 2012: Bilateral Diplomacy, Diplomacy of Small States, and E-diplomacy. >>> Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses >>> >>> >>> >>> On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> Comment below: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> wrote: >>>> > Dear All, >>>> > >>>> > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much >>>> > easier >>>> > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, >>>> > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. >>>> > >>>> > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on >>>> > the >>>> > Statement Workspace as well: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE >>>> > PARTICIPATION >>>> > >>>> > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet >>>> > Governance >>>> > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last >>>> > five >>>> > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind >>>> > the >>>> > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today.  We have seen >>>> > how >>>> > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with >>>> > extraordinary >>>> > levels of sacrifice and commitment.  It is this commitment that enables >>>> > the >>>> > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and >>>> > ultimately access. >>>> > >>>> > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN >>>> > DESA >>>> > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote >>>> > Participation. >>>> > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote >>>> > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with >>>> > remote >>>> > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to >>>> > make >>>> > remote participation a reality. >>>> > >>>> > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is >>>> > a >>>> > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >>>> > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >>>> > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and >>>> > the >>>> > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >>>> > >>>> > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >>>> > part >>>> > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to >>>> > sustain >>>> > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >>>> > participation. >>>> > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to >>>> > address >>>> > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be >>>> > addressed[1]. >>>> > >>>> > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >>>> > ensure >>>> > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not >>>> > just >>>> > the Main Sessions. >>>> > >>>> >>>> from the Nairobi chair's summary document: >>>> >>>> "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from >>>> the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop >>>> meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time >>>> transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were >>>> made available through the IGF Website." >>>> >>>> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >>>> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >>>> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >>>> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >>>> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from >>>> > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was >>>> > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society >>>> > Coordinator >>>> > Vittorio Bertola. >>>> > >>>> > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >>>> > with the >>>> > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, >>>> > (the >>>> > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively >>>> > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. >>>> > >>>> >  Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >>>> > contacting >>>> > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one >>>> > function. >>>> > >>>> > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the >>>> > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >>>> > work >>>> > together to bring them about: >>>> > >>>> > ·   Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >>>> > participants >>>> > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >>>> > equal >>>> > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >>>> > >>>> > ·   Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >>>> > bandwidth to >>>> > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to >>>> > enable greater interactions from offline participants. >>>> > >>>> > ·   Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >>>> > and >>>> > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, >>>> > facilitators and chairs. >>>> > >>>> > ·   Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >>>> > meetings, >>>> > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >>>> > through >>>> > RP that will be available. >>>> > >>>> > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators >>>> > (who >>>> > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for >>>> > interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current >>>> > speaker, >>>> > the Chair and the remote participants). >>>> > >>>> > ·   Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>>> > participants >>>> > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically >>>> > present >>>> > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >>>> > >>>> > ·   Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>>> > participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>>> > >>>> > ·   Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >>>> > as >>>> > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the >>>> > meeting >>>> > >>>> > ·   Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >>>> > presentations access through RP. >>>> > >>>> > ·   Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>>> > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >>>> > that >>>> > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >>>> > ensure >>>> > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to >>>> > ensure >>>> > improved remote participation processes. >>>> > >>>> > Because only limited funds are available for face- to >>>> > -face participation, >>>> > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all >>>> > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who >>>> > wish >>>> > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central >>>> > role in >>>> > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote >>>> > participation. >>>> > >>>> > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >>>> > private >>>> > sector in enhancing remote participation. >>>> > >>>> > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >>>> > outcomes to >>>> > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. >>>> > >>>> > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >>>> > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >>>> > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >>>> > countries could access the IGF. >>>> > >>>> > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >>>> > where >>>> > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>>> > methodology. >>>> > >>>> >  The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >>>> > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >>>> > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a >>>> > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >>>> > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >>>> > sustain >>>> > the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>>> > >>>> > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also >>>> > include the following:- >>>> > >>>> > ·         Outreach. >>>> > >>>> > ·         Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>>> > >>>> > ·         Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before >>>> > the >>>> > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. >>>> > >>>> > ·         Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators >>>> > whilst >>>> > noting the limitations. >>>> > >>>> > ·         Identifying how the private sector, civil society and >>>> > governments >>>> > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. >>>> > >>>> > ·         Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and >>>> > national, >>>> > sub regional and regional IGFs. >>>> > >>>> > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines >>>> > and >>>> > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 >>>> > participants >>>> > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. >>>> > >>>> > Ends >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ________________________________ >>>> > >>>> > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Dear Sala, >>>> >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching >>>> >> up >>>> >> with reading the messages. >>>> >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >>>> >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from >>>> >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the >>>> >> discussions today? >>>> >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >>>> >> De >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Dear Deirdre, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society >>>> >>> component >>>> >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >>>> >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also >>>> >>> be >>>> >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>>> >> William >>>> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> > >>>> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> > Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu Feb 23 08:46:31 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:46:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking System. In-Reply-To: <053001ccf1e1$98acd160$ca067420$@pk> References: <053001ccf1e1$98acd160$ca067420$@pk> Message-ID: <4F464337.2060104@apc.org> Thanks for this Shahzad. Very relevant for next week's panel. The transparency of putting out a public call for bids for filtering and blocking systems is quite remarkable :) It shows confidence, it sends a strong public message, and it will also encourage competition and innovation in the internet industry to come up with 'smarter' ways of filtering. All very disturbing. Anriette On 23/02/12 06:14, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Folks, > > > > Forwarding for your kind information, the little news and the grand > plans of Government of Pakistan to build Great Firewall. > > > > We believe that it coincides well with the UN’s Experts Panel on 29th > Februaryand the panelists may like to raise this? > > > > RFP is attached and here is the link: > > > > http://ictrdf.org.pk/RFP-%20URL%20Filtering%20&%20Blocking.pdf > > > > > *An excerpt from the RFP: * > > “/Each box should be able to handle a block list of up to *50 million > URLs* (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing > delay of *not more than 1 milliseconds*."/ > > > > Bytes for All, Pakistan have been expecting that there will be major > crackdown on the Internet towards elections… and this probably is the > start of things to come in the near future. We are going to issue a > public statement on this and will share the updates. > > > > Best wishes and regards > > > > Shahzad Ahmad > > www.bytesforall.pk > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Thu Feb 23 09:32:52 2012 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:32:52 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking System. In-Reply-To: <4F464337.2060104@apc.org> References: <053001ccf1e1$98acd160$ca067420$@pk> <4F464337.2060104@apc.org> Message-ID: <07cc01ccf238$08a652b0$19f2f810$@pk> Thanks Anriette for the kind message. We think that this advertisement is just to complete the bidding and documentary process as it is required now otherwise, competing parties end up in the court. The system would have already been in place by now... who knows? Right now, we are working on our public statement against the proposed system. Will post it here and send to you separately. Best wishes Shahzad -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:47 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking System. Thanks for this Shahzad. Very relevant for next week's panel. The transparency of putting out a public call for bids for filtering and blocking systems is quite remarkable :) It shows confidence, it sends a strong public message, and it will also encourage competition and innovation in the internet industry to come up with 'smarter' ways of filtering. All very disturbing. Anriette On 23/02/12 06:14, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Folks, > > > > Forwarding for your kind information, the little news and the grand > plans of Government of Pakistan to build Great Firewall. > > > > We believe that it coincides well with the UN's Experts Panel on 29th > Februaryand the panelists may like to raise this? > > > > RFP is attached and here is the link: > > > > http://ictrdf.org.pk/RFP-%20URL%20Filtering%20&%20Blocking.pdf > > > > > *An excerpt from the RFP: * > > "/Each box should be able to handle a block list of up to *50 million > URLs* (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing > delay of *not more than 1 milliseconds*."/ > > > > Bytes for All, Pakistan have been expecting that there will be major > crackdown on the Internet towards elections. and this probably is the > start of things to come in the near future. We are going to issue a > public statement on this and will share the updates. > > > > Best wishes and regards > > > > Shahzad Ahmad > > www.bytesforall.pk > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From azrak_khan at hotmail.com Thu Feb 23 09:50:49 2012 From: azrak_khan at hotmail.com (Arzak Khan ) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:50:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering Message-ID: The main purpose behind placing this filtering box is to allow the government at any time to completely restrict what it desires. Presently ISP have been instructed to do it but than the chain becomes complicated and long for these internet restrictions to be implemented. Also ISPs do need to consider the business case for such kind of blocking and filtering e.g. in the event of blocking porn in Pakistan we have seen considerable decline in video traffic so we have seen reluctancy of certain ISP in complying to the growing demands of govt to block or deny access to certain content. Also with the growing use of social media networks for digital activism the government feels threatened from the free and open internet. Example being complete blocking of websites highlighting human rights abuses in Balochistan. Cheers! Arzak ---------- Sent via Nokia Email -----Original Message----- From: Shahzad Ahmad Sent: 2/23/2012 2:32:52 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org , 'Anriette Esterhuysen' Subject: RE: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking System. Thanks Anriette for the kind message. We think that this advertisement is just to complete the bidding and documentary process as it is required now otherwise, competing parties end up in the court. The system would have already been in place by now... who knows? Right now, we are working on our public statement against the proposed system. Will post it here and send to you separately. Best wishes Shahzad -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:47 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking System. Thanks for this Shahzad. Very relevant for next week's panel. The transparency of putting out a public call for bids for filtering and blocking systems is quite remarkable :) It shows confidence, it sends a strong public message, and it will also encourage competition and innovation in the internet industry to come up with 'smarter' ways of filtering. All very disturbing. Anriette On 23/02/12 06:14, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Folks, > > > > Forwarding for your kind information, the little news and the grand > plans of Government of Pakistan to build Great Firewall. > > > > We believe that it coincides well with the UN's Experts Panel on 29th > Februaryand the panelists may like to raise this? > > > > RFP is attached and here is the link: > > > > http://ictrdf.org.pk/RFP-%20URL%20Filtering%20&%20Blocking.pdf > > > > > *An excerpt from the RFP: * > > "/Each box should be able to handle a block list of up to *50 million > URLs* (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing > delay of *not more than 1 milliseconds*."/ > > > > Bytes for All, Pakistan have been expecting that there will be major > crackdown on the Internet towards elections. and this probably is the > start of things to come in the near future. We are going to issue a > public statement on this and will share the updates. > > > > Best wishes and regards > > > > Shahzad Ahmad > > www.bytesforall.pk > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From brett at accessnow.org Thu Feb 23 10:40:53 2012 From: brett at accessnow.org (Brett Solomon) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:40:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking System. In-Reply-To: <07cc01ccf238$08a652b0$19f2f810$@pk> References: <053001ccf1e1$98acd160$ca067420$@pk> <4F464337.2060104@apc.org> <07cc01ccf238$08a652b0$19f2f810$@pk> Message-ID: The terms of reference for the RFP is enlightening below. I also note this from the RFP: "Technical proposals must be delivered at the address given below before 1500 hrs (PST), on 2nd March, 2012 ...... Upon submission, Technical Proposals shall be opened at 1530 hrs, on 2nd March, 2012 *in presence of all applicants who choose to be present.*" Seeing the advertising process is so 'transparent', I think its worth ensuring that the names of the companies that apply for the RFP is equally 'transparent'. Brett * TERMS OF REFERENCE* Internet access in Pakistan is mostly unrestricted and unfiltered. The Internet traffic is coming from two IP backbone providers, i.e., PTCL and TWA. The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and backbone providers have currently deployed manual URL filtering and blocking mechanism in order to block the specific URLs containing undesirable content as notified by PTA from time to time. Many countries have deployed web filtering and blocking systems at the Internet backbones within their countries.* However, Pakistani ISPs and backbone providers have expressed their inability to block millions of undesirable web sites using current manual blocking systems. A national URL filtering and blocking system is therefore required to be deployed at national IP backbone of the country. * ICT R&D Fund has decided to fund the* indigenous development,* deployment, operations and maintenance of such a system by companies, vendors, academia and/or research organizations with proven track record. This system would be indigenously developed within Pakistan and* deployed at IP backbones in major cities, i.e., Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad.* Any other city/POP could be added in future. The system is proposed to be centrally managed by a small and efficient team stationed at POPs of backbone providers. The system would have a central database of undesirable URLs that would be loaded on the distributed hardware boxes at each POP and updated on daily basis. The database would be regularly updated through subscription to an international reputed company maintaining and updating such databases. System requirements would be as follows: 1. Should be capable of URL filtering and blocking, from domain level to sub folder, file levels and file types. 2. Should be able to block a single IP address or a range of IP address. 3. Hardware should be stand-alone that can be integrated into any Ethernet/IP network. 4. Hardware should be carrier grade, 1+1 redundant configuration, 100% uptime, redundant power supplies (-48 V DC) with minimum power consumption and other carrier grade specifications. 5. The system should be capable of network monitoring via SNMP. The system should also report critical system statistics, like CPU/Memory utilization, network throughput, etc. 6. The solution should support offline configuration with zero packet delay to the original traffic. 7. The system should operate on OSI layer 2 or 3. 8. The bandwidth handling capacity should be scalable. The current bandwidth of Pakistan is about 85Gbps in total as of December 2011, growing at 40-50% per year. The solution should be scalable and modular to cater for bandwidth expansion of future. Bandwidth expansion should be handled by adding/stacking hardware boxes in modular form. The solution should be deployed in distributed model with filtering boxes placed at the distribution points of backbone providers in major cities. Each hardware box should be capable of handling 10Gbps (or more) of traffic at line rate. The installation at PTCL IP Gateways at Karachi (Pak Capital and Marston Road Exchange requires to TAP 20 (twenty) 10G interfaces. The system should be able to handle 100Gbps traffic at each node. PTCL has decided to install 100Gbps interfaces at above location in near future, therefore the system should be able to support 100Gbps interfaces. Minimum change should be required to migrate from 10Gbps interfaces to 100Gbps interfaces. Similar design approach should be adopted after reviewing the core network of TWA. 9. The system should be modular and scalable to any number of interfaces at the backbone router/switches. 10. The system should have the ability to intercept the flow in both directions (in-bound or out-bound traffic). 11. The system should be rapidly programmable to support new protocols and applications. 12. The system should be preferably plug and play and require minimum configuration for setup. 13. The total delay introduced by each hardware box should not be more than 1 milliseconds at line rate of 10Gbps. In case of offline configuration there should be Fail Safe operation. Page 5 of 5 14. Each box should be able to handle a block list of up to 50 million URLs (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing delay of not more than 1 milliseconds. 15. The system should support multiple languages to capture URL in any language. 16. The system must support IWF or any other equivalent 3rd party external URL Database. 17. Master Database update time should be user configurable. 18. The Master Database should be locally installed with support to update the Database from network. 19. The system should allow Proprietary DB definition or integration. 20. The Database should be flexible and could be locally modified to meet customer needs. 21. The Database should be flexible to add/remove filters or categories. 22. The backend control of the system to view access to block list URL database should be only with the solution holder (backbone operator). The solution supplier should not have access to view the categories defined by the customer. 23. The solution supplier should be able to provide remote and onsite support on 24 x7 basis in major cities of Pakistan. 24. The solution supplier should propose and quote for providing operations and maintenance (O&M) support of the system with service level agreement (SLA) for five years after system installation and commissioning. 25. System supplier should quote cost of yearly maintenance and up-gradation of the system. 26. No one should be able to view or access the customer defined categories in Database. 27. Separate hardware fast-path for delay-sensitive traffic, ensuring very low latency (~10micS) should be provided. The system should have load balancing and failover capabilities. In case of failure or degraded performance of the system, it should be capable of automatic bypass through a fail-safe port. 28. Updating of URL Database should be done through CLI commands. Support for bulk load through file/network should also be provided. 29. The solution should also support Web based administration via HTTP or HTTPS. 30. The solution should provide easy to use, user friendly web based application to easily block/unblock URL categories. 31. The solution should provide a hierarchical authentication system with configurable hierarchal access to the system management. 32. Blacklist database must be protected with some encryption technology method/key to protect tampering. 33. The system should allow to view statistics related to packet TX and RX. 34. The system should allow reset to factory default mode. User should be prompted if Database is to be reset too. 35. The system should allow to enable/disable all the features listed under filtering/blocking. END OF RFP On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Thanks Anriette for the kind message. > > We think that this advertisement is just to complete the bidding and > documentary process as it is required now otherwise, competing parties end > up in the court. The system would have already been in place by now... who > knows? > > Right now, we are working on our public statement against the proposed > system. Will post it here and send to you separately. > > Best wishes > Shahzad > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette > Esterhuysen > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:47 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking > System. > > Thanks for this Shahzad. Very relevant for next week's panel. The > transparency of putting out a public call for bids for filtering and > blocking systems is quite remarkable :) > > It shows confidence, it sends a strong public message, and it will also > encourage competition and innovation in the internet industry to come up > with 'smarter' ways of filtering. All very disturbing. > > Anriette > > > On 23/02/12 06:14, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > Folks, > > > > > > > > Forwarding for your kind information, the little news and the grand > > plans of Government of Pakistan to build Great Firewall. > > > > > > > > We believe that it coincides well with the UN's Experts Panel on 29th > > Februaryand the panelists may like to raise this? > > > > > > > > RFP is attached and here is the link: > > > > > > > > http://ictrdf.org.pk/RFP-%20URL%20Filtering%20&%20Blocking.pdf > > > > > > > > > > *An excerpt from the RFP: * > > > > "/Each box should be able to handle a block list of up to *50 million > > URLs* (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing > > delay of *not more than 1 milliseconds*."/ > > > > > > > > Bytes for All, Pakistan have been expecting that there will be major > > crackdown on the Internet towards elections. and this probably is the > > start of things to come in the near future. We are going to issue a > > public statement on this and will share the updates. > > > > > > > > Best wishes and regards > > > > > > > > Shahzad Ahmad > > > > www.bytesforall.pk > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Brett Solomon Executive Director | Access accessnow.org | rightscon.org +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Feb 23 11:33:48 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:33:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] I'm "virtually" baffled - a side-glance at "remote participation" Message-ID: Opening the NYT Magazine this morning, I was baffled by a long article describing a “virtual reality” crime with real "prison time" consequences. Read my consideration first, though. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html Pared to the barest bones, the event is as follows. A man on the web enters an “adult chat-room” (i.e. self-declaration >18y) and anonymously engages is explicit conversation with another person there. At one point the chat-partner tells him she is under age. He has no way of verifying the statement. He then proceeds to masturbate in front of his web-camera. It so happened that the chat-partner was an under-cover policeman. The man was eventually sentenced to a minimum of 18 month and up to 5.5 years in jail. That the man needs psychological help is undisputed. Whether 18 months in jail will persuade him “*to take responsibility” *for what he’s done – so the Judge – is open to debate. Let’s look at the circumstances of the case, however: the whole thing took place in a virtual loop. The man was in no position to verify with whom he chatted. For all he knew, no one was watching what he did, nor was the person forced to watch what he was doing. He did not propose a face to face encounter. The baffling question to me is: was there a crime to begin with? I see a wider connection to “remote participation” – to what extent might one be liable for passive or active “remote participation”, or even simply being on a list? What makes the matter poignant – yet distracting – is that the man was Scott RITTER, who looked in vain for WMD in IRAQ is the run-up to the war and warned that there weren’t any. That’s the human angle – and what accounts for the 9 pages. Aldo -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 12:51:36 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:51:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Arzak Khan wrote: > The main purpose behind placing this filtering box is to allow the > government at any time to completely restrict what it desires. Do they block according to existilang laws such as Obscene Publication Act etc. When I went into the site that Shahzad sent in relation to the link he sent for the RFPs, I noticed that it was being put up by an arm of the Government Ministry which was the R&D Fund. I then went into Pakistan's Legal Database to see how this was organised and found the following: "The* Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) (Amendment) Act, 2006 (Act No. II of 2006) *seeks to amend the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. It provides for legal cover to the changes made in the telecom sector introduced through the Telecom Deregulation Policy and Mobile Cellular Policy. It further provides for establishment of R&D Fund (Research and Development Fund) USF (Universal Service Fund), its administration and utilization making it obligatory also on the part of the Licensee to contribute to R& D plus US Funds. It enhances the powers of the Federal Government to increase the number of members of the Authority and further classifies the functions of Authority i.e. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority". [Several questions surface and I would like ask the following:- 1. Was the amendment debated in Parliament? Was it the "express will of the people" ? It says "Act" but at the same time it is categorised as President's Order. I could assume that it was the decision of Pakistan's legislature; 2. I have difficulties understanding how a Tribunal established by the Federal Government in Pakistan is the Appellate Forum along with the High Court under the *Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) (Amendment) Act, 2006 (Act No. II of 2006). *Who gets to choose?* * 3. As an outsider, I am somewhat comforted by Pakistan's National Judicial Policy, see: http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/NJP2009.pdf which shows the Courts approach to perceived encroachment to certain liberties; 4. It will be good if the Pakistan IGF could run workshops for the general community and weave it into judicial workshops and the main thing is to get people to understand the diverse perspectives etc and also get the Pakistan Human Rights Commission more involved in IGF if they are not already; 5. I also note that this is a sensitive issue especially for those in conflict territory" and you may wish to read an excellent piece on "Freedom of Expression in Conflict Areas such as Pakistan, see: http://www.hrcp-web.org/shownews.asp?id=23 The reality is at the end of the day even for the ICCPR, and freedom of expression there are rights and responsibilities and there are exceptions. It is the determining of the boundaries that is at stake. > Presently ISP have been instructed to do it but than the chain becomes > complicated and long for these internet restrictions to be implemented. > Also ISPs do need to consider the business case for such kind of blocking > and filtering e.g. in the event of blocking porn in Pakistan we have seen > considerable decline in video traffic so we have seen reluctancy of certain > ISP in complying to the growing demands of govt to block or deny access to > certain content. > Also with the growing use of social media networks for digital activism > the government feels threatened from the free and open internet. Example > being complete blocking of websites highlighting human rights abuses in > Balochistan. > > Cheers! > Arzak > > ---------- > Sent via Nokia Email > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shahzad Ahmad ** > Sent: 2/23/2012 2:32:52 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org **, 'Anriette Esterhuysen' ** > Subject: RE: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking > System. > Thanks Anriette for the kind message. > > We think that this advertisement is just to complete the bidding and > documentary process as it is required now otherwise, competing parties end > up in the court. The system would have already been in place by now... who > knows? > > Right now, we are working on our public statement against the proposed > system. Will post it here and send to you separately. > > Best wishes > Shahzad > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > On Behalf Of Anriette > Esterhuysen > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:47 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking > System. > > Thanks for this Shahzad. Very relevant for next week's panel. The > transparency of putting out a public call for bids for filtering and > blocking systems is quite remarkable :) > > It shows confidence, it sends a strong public message, and it will also > encourage competition and innovation in the internet industry to come up > with 'smarter' ways of filtering. All very disturbing. > > Anriette > > > On 23/02/12 06:14, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > > Folks, > > > > > > > > Forwarding for your kind information, the little news and the grand > > plans of Government of Pakistan to build Great Firewall. > > > > > > > > We believe that it coincides well with the UN's Experts Panel on 29th > > Februaryand the panelists may like to raise this? > > > > > > > > RFP is attached and here is the link: > > > > > > > > http://ictrdf.org.pk/RFP-%20URL%20Filtering%20&%20Blocking.pdf > > > > > > > > > > *An excerpt from the RFP: * > > > > "/Each box should be able to handle a block list of up to *50 million > > URLs* (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing > > delay of *not more than 1 milliseconds*."/ > > > > > > > > Bytes for All, Pakistan have been expecting that there will be major > > crackdown on the Internet towards elections. and this probably is the > > start of things to come in the near future. We are going to issue a > > public statement on this and will share the updates. > > > > > > > > Best wishes and regards > > > > > > > > Shahzad Ahmad > > > > www.bytesforall.pk > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 12:52:39 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:52:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "existilang" is meant to read as "existing" On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Arzak Khan wrote: > >> The main purpose behind placing this filtering box is to allow the >> government at any time to completely restrict what it desires. > > > Do they block according to existilang laws such as Obscene Publication Act > etc. When I went into the site that Shahzad sent in relation to the link he > sent for the RFPs, I noticed that it was being put up by an arm of the > Government Ministry which was the R&D Fund. I then went into Pakistan's > Legal Database to see how this was organised and found the following: > > "The* Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) (Amendment) Act, 2006 > (Act No. II of 2006) *seeks to amend the Pakistan Telecommunication > (Re-organization) Act, 1996. It provides for legal cover to the changes > made in the telecom sector introduced through the Telecom Deregulation > Policy and Mobile Cellular Policy. It further provides for establishment of > R&D Fund (Research and Development Fund) USF (Universal Service Fund), its > administration and utilization making it obligatory also on the part of the > Licensee to contribute to R& D plus US Funds. It enhances the powers of the > Federal Government to increase the number of members of the Authority and > further classifies the functions of Authority i.e. Pakistan > Telecommunication Authority". > > [Several questions surface and I would like ask the following:- > > 1. Was the amendment debated in Parliament? Was it the "express will > of the people" ? It says "Act" but at the same time it is categorised as > President's Order. I could assume that it was the decision of Pakistan's > legislature; > 2. I have difficulties understanding how a Tribunal established by the > Federal Government in Pakistan is the Appellate Forum along with the High > Court under the *Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) > (Amendment) Act, 2006 (Act No. II of 2006). *Who gets to choose?* > * > 3. As an outsider, I am somewhat comforted by Pakistan's National > Judicial Policy, see: > http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/NJP2009.pdf which > shows the Courts approach to perceived encroachment to certain liberties; > 4. It will be good if the Pakistan IGF could run workshops for the > general community and weave it into judicial workshops and the main thing > is to get people to understand the diverse perspectives etc and also get > the Pakistan Human Rights Commission more involved in IGF if they are not > already; > 5. I also note that this is a sensitive issue especially for those in > conflict territory" and you may wish to read an excellent piece on "Freedom > of Expression in Conflict Areas such as Pakistan, see: > http://www.hrcp-web.org/shownews.asp?id=23 > > The reality is at the end of the day even for the ICCPR, and freedom of > expression there are rights and responsibilities and there are exceptions. > It is the determining of the boundaries that is at stake. > > > > > >> Presently ISP have been instructed to do it but than the chain becomes >> complicated and long for these internet restrictions to be implemented. >> Also ISPs do need to consider the business case for such kind of blocking >> and filtering e.g. in the event of blocking porn in Pakistan we have seen >> considerable decline in video traffic so we have seen reluctancy of certain >> ISP in complying to the growing demands of govt to block or deny access to >> certain content. >> Also with the growing use of social media networks for digital activism >> the government feels threatened from the free and open internet. Example >> being complete blocking of websites highlighting human rights abuses in >> Balochistan. >> >> Cheers! >> Arzak >> >> ---------- >> Sent via Nokia Email >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Shahzad Ahmad ** >> Sent: 2/23/2012 2:32:52 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org **, 'Anriette Esterhuysen' ** >> Subject: RE: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking >> System. >> Thanks Anriette for the kind message. >> >> We think that this advertisement is just to complete the bidding and >> documentary process as it is required now otherwise, competing parties end >> up in the court. The system would have already been in place by now... who >> knows? >> >> Right now, we are working on our public statement against the proposed >> system. Will post it here and send to you separately. >> >> Best wishes >> Shahzad >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >> On Behalf Of Anriette >> Esterhuysen >> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:47 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking >> System. >> >> Thanks for this Shahzad. Very relevant for next week's panel. The >> transparency of putting out a public call for bids for filtering and >> blocking systems is quite remarkable :) >> >> It shows confidence, it sends a strong public message, and it will also >> encourage competition and innovation in the internet industry to come up >> with 'smarter' ways of filtering. All very disturbing. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 23/02/12 06:14, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> > Folks, >> > >> > >> > >> > Forwarding for your kind information, the little news and the grand >> > plans of Government of Pakistan to build Great Firewall. >> > >> > >> > >> > We believe that it coincides well with the UN's Experts Panel on 29th >> > Februaryand the panelists may like to raise this? >> > >> > >> > >> > RFP is attached and here is the link: >> > >> > >> > >> > http://ictrdf.org.pk/RFP-%20URL%20Filtering%20&%20Blocking.pdf >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > *An excerpt from the RFP: * >> > >> > "/Each box should be able to handle a block list of up to *50 million >> > URLs* (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing >> > delay of *not more than 1 milliseconds*."/ >> > >> > >> > >> > Bytes for All, Pakistan have been expecting that there will be major >> > crackdown on the Internet towards elections. and this probably is the >> > start of things to come in the near future. We are going to issue a >> > public statement on this and will share the updates. >> > >> > >> > >> > Best wishes and regards >> > >> > >> > >> > Shahzad Ahmad >> > >> > www.bytesforall.pk >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 13:03:20 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:03:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] I'm "virtually" baffled - a side-glance at "remote participation" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I found the piece, really interesting, insightful and it made me chuckl etc. It is also causing me deeply think about what "equal participation for off site means" and verification of participants etc. Should participants be verified or not or do we accept that they are who they say they are. I was told by a credible source that in China, the Government pays numerous people to respond to blogs, organisations etc to push away anti-government sentiments etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 13:13:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:13:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <1329772898.27284.yint-ygo-j2me@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329808521.83361.YahooMailNeo@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329824861.6417.YahooMailNeo@web161003.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1329826933.13186.YahooMailNeo@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi everyone, Let me know if you would like to add additional thoughts etc. Volunteers are still needed to consolidate the themes etc to make it more coherent and will soon put it back to the list through the Statement Workspace for the rough consensus call before it is put to the MAG. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Tim Davies < > tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: > >> Hello Imran and others, >> >> I'm also uncomfortable if we frame 'Internet for Kids' as creating some >> sort of separate tightly filtered Internet. I would see the task of >> focussing on the Internet for Children much more as a question of ensuring >> there is positive content available to children in engaging online and >> making positive choices, rather than adults choosing to control children's >> and young people's access to information with filtered online spaces. >> >> > Excellent point Tim. I like this approach. > > Perhaps if I could invite volunteers to work on consolidating the > comments and themes that have surfaced so we can get some level of > consensus. This is so we can prepare to send our thoughts. We will then put > it to the list for a consensus call. > > I think a language of Children's Rights is useful here, and the ideas >> Imran suggest below, might fit into the proposal I put in the Human Rights >> thread for reframing 'Child Protection' as a 'Children's Rights' thread. >> Below is what I said in that thread about the value in taking a Children's >> Rights approach to these issues: >> >> "On the suggestion for (11) on 'Online child protection', I would really >> like to see this framed as 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision and >> Participation', rather than solely 'child protection', particularly as this >> is falling under a 'human rights' heading. >> >> I've written a bit on the justification for this at >> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23226/ - but essentially, when we adopt >> narrow narratives of 'online child protection' we end up (a) neglecting >> children and young people's broader set of rights to be active >> participants on the web, and to safe and supportive online provision; and >> (b) we adopt counter-productive strategies which don't even serve the >> intended goals of keeping young people safe from harm online. " >> >> All the best >> >> Tim >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Fatima Cambronero < >> fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 2012/2/21 McTim >>> >>>> On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>> > Thanks Sala for your comments, >>>> > This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were >>>> discussing >>>> > that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing, >>>> > configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or >>>> using >>>> > the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we >>>> devise some >>>> > governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser to >>>> Kids >>>> > Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the >>>> confidence of >>>> > Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids. >>>> >>>> >>>> Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to >>>> Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate). >>>> >>> >>> >>> And what about their privacy? Do children have no Right to Privacy? >>> >>> From what age do children acquire the right to privacy? >>> >>> >>> >>> Fatima >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Fatima Cambronero* >>> Abogada-Argentina >>> Directora de Investigaciones >>> *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* >>> http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ >>> >>> *@facambronero* >>> >>> *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> http://www.timdavies.org.uk >> 07834 856 303. >> @timdavies >> >> Co-director of Practical Participation: >> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >> -------------------------- >> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales >> - #5381958. >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 13:36:05 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:36:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The Statement that I had sent in-text reflecting the new contributions etc is now on the Statement Workspace. I would urge you to visit http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 where you can comment on specific paragraphs and suggest changes, amendments and variations or reflections and thoughts. With our original Statement that was developed, was given to the CSTD who have* *facilitated our concerns. This newly edited Statement is put to the list for another 48 hours which will form the official IGC position, so please make your voices heard. This will be sent to the IGF Secretariat. Warm Regards from Fiji, 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 13:41:25 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:41:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Pakistan's Great Firewall So far from what I have researched, the present URL blocking system is complaint led by Internet users irrespective. The literacy levels and Internet usage levels of these Internet Users varies broadly and there is no significant baseline to prove the state of demographics of the lodged complaints. From my in depth research of the issue and consulting authorities, the URL blocking works by Internet Users filing complaints to the regulator PTA or to the court for any obscene website or online content. This can be both aware and unaware citizens. These can be both types of citizens that are aware or unawre of their Human Rights or Privacy issues. They can go to both courts and PTA. The regulator then has to evaluate and authenticate the content of any such reported URL/Website and then only can they issue directives to block access to that website. This original system is very much in place and is open to all. So far I've been able to conclude that thousands of websites are blocked with the largest number being of pornographic content. Violations of HR, FoE etc become secondary in the regulators evaluation when the complaints are being actually lodged by individuals that may be aware/unaware of their rights. So far websites have been blocked in Pakistan for the past 5 years since 2006 when IPs were blocked for the first time. This affected hosting servers and ip ranges. Then there was an industry attempt to remove IP addresses and enable url filtering. Last year the ISPs were advised to install proxy blocking system. On the issue of the RFP while reading through the text, there is a designated company that will be hired, it is not even based on competition, its all planned out. How will they pay per URL blocking basis to that company? They are asking for a very huge system, larger then the Nauras Deep Inspection System already enforced on listening to Mobile Phone voice calls, SMS messages, blackberry communications, basically its something defense grade. This RFP has been supposedly issued without the consent of the organization's Board consideration and must have been floated by the CEO though this is not verifiable. Such a blocking system is already in place. As evident from the text, this system will include three years operational and maintenance financial costs which doesn't make sense for a developing country like Pakistan where the system is already in place. It resembles the same systems implemented and enforced by some strict middle eastern countries. The current RFP may be focused at a system to be federally administered without the intermediary PTA regulator. If this is run independently, it may be prone to target the political social media campaigns, election relevant content and expression, freedom of expression, partisan and bipartisan information, business specific, organization specific content etc. There seems to be no reaction so far in the electronic media and this is definitely an alarming situation. The issue at hand is that this must be stopped. The amount of money involved is immense. All media sources should be notified of this activity that may have disastrous results as this may lead to block of educational content, political content, Fooo On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Arzak Khan wrote: > The main purpose behind placing this filtering box is to allow the > government at any time to completely restrict what it desires. Presently ISP > have been instructed to do it but than the chain becomes complicated and > long for these internet restrictions to be implemented. Also ISPs do need to > consider the business case for such kind of blocking and filtering e.g. in > the event of blocking porn in Pakistan we have seen considerable decline in > video traffic so we have seen reluctancy of certain ISP in complying to the > growing demands of govt to block or deny access to certain content. > Also with the growing use of social media networks for digital activism the > government feels threatened from the free and open internet. Example being > complete blocking of websites highlighting human rights abuses in > Balochistan. > > Cheers! > Arzak > > ---------- > Sent via Nokia Email > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shahzad Ahmad > Sent: 2/23/2012 2:32:52 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org , 'Anriette Esterhuysen' > Subject: RE: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking > System. > Thanks Anriette for the kind message. > > We think that this advertisement is just to complete the bidding and > documentary process as it is required now otherwise, competing parties end > up in the court. The system would have already been in place by now... who > knows? > > Right now, we are working on our public statement against the proposed > system. Will post it here and send to you separately. > > Best wishes > Shahzad > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette > Esterhuysen > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 6:47 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Pakistan: National URL Filtering & Blocking > System. > > Thanks for this Shahzad. Very relevant for next week's panel. The > transparency of putting out a public call for bids for filtering and > blocking systems is quite remarkable :) > > It shows confidence, it sends a strong public message, and it will also > encourage competition and innovation in the internet industry to come up > with 'smarter' ways of filtering.  All very disturbing. > > Anriette > > > On 23/02/12 06:14, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> Folks, >> >> >> >> Forwarding for your kind information, the little news and the grand >> plans of Government of Pakistan to build Great Firewall. >> >> >> >> We believe that it coincides well with the UN's Experts Panel on 29th >> Februaryand the panelists may like to raise this? >> >> >> >> RFP is attached and here is the link: >> >> >> >> http://ictrdf.org.pk/RFP-%20URL%20Filtering%20&%20Blocking.pdf >> >> >> >> >> *An excerpt from the RFP: * >> >> "/Each box should be able to handle a block list of up to *50 million >> URLs* (concurrent unidirectional filtering capacity) with processing >> delay of *not more than 1 milliseconds*."/ >> >> >> >> Bytes for All, Pakistan have been expecting that there will be major >> crackdown on the Internet towards elections. and this probably is the >> start of things to come in the near future. We are going to issue a >> public statement on this and will share the updates. >> >> >> >> Best wishes and regards >> >> >> >> Shahzad Ahmad >> >> www.bytesforall.pk >> >> >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 14:10:42 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:10:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] 56th Session of Commission of the Status of Women (CSW) Message-ID: Dear All, The fifty-sixth session of the Commission of the Status of Women (CSW) will take place at United Nations Headquarters in New York from Monday, 27 February to Friday, 9 March 2012. One of our members, Shaila Mistry is part of the delegation and is delighted to read a Statement by the IGC at the meeting in New York and provide a Report back to the IGC. If there are people/volunteers who wan to initiate draft text that can put to the IGC, please be empowered and take the initiative to commence drafting and respond to this thread. There was some discussion on the Access thread about Internet and Women but I do not want to restrict "free thinking". Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 15:40:28 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:40:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] I'm "virtually" baffled - a side-glance at "remote participation" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I read this news article that was released 2 hours ago which made me think of Aldo's post. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46491507/ns/local_news-miami_fl/t/florida-lawmaker-under-investigation-creepy-texts/ 1. Issue: How do they know that was the Florida law maker sending the creepy text? In this instance, he confessed but do we always assume who the sender is merely by IP address and other factors? On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > I found the piece, really interesting, insightful and it made me chuckl > etc. It is also causing me deeply think about what "equal participation for > off site means" and verification of participants etc. Should participants > be verified or not or do we accept that they are who they say they are. > > I was told by a credible source that in China, the Government pays > numerous people to respond to blogs, organisations etc to push away > anti-government sentiments etc. > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 17:07:42 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:07:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] Message-ID: Dear All, I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a Statement by the 29th February, 2012. The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx *Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email:* Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >> Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human rights:- - privacy - security - freedom of expression - intellectual property or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the Agenda: > > > See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true > > > Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet > > On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision > to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at > its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative > of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. > This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom > of expression on the Internet. > > "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human rights > issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister for > Foreign Affairs. > > Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and > protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, > presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN > Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl > Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in > La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of > influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. > This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude > today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and > representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and > civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of > expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human > Rights Council for the first time. > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and >> use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that >> there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the >> years. >> >> We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put >> together a first draft for others to comment. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >> >>> Dear Robert, >>> >>> What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? >>> Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. >>> >>> Best wishes & regards >>> Shahzad >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Brett, >>> > >>> > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum >>> should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that >>> was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this >>> past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and >>> it was not accepted. >>> > >>> > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the >>> meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes >>> at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >>> > is still being discussed. >>> > >>> > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort >>> is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >>> > >>> > regards >>> > >>> > Robert >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > R. Guerra >>> > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>> > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>> > >>> > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >>> > >>> >> Thanks Joy, >>> >> >>> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the >>> High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb >>> 29). >>> >> >>> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the >>> realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil >>> society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with >>> confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the >>> broader constellation of human rights. >>> >> >>> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and >>> recommendations can be found here: >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>> >> >>> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the >>> actual Panel. >>> >> >>> >> Brett >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Brett Solomon >>> >> Executive Director | Access >>> >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>> >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>> >> Dear colleagues, >>> >> >>> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights >>> Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>> >> >>> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >>> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >>> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >>> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >>> the panel event. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >>> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >>> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >>> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >>> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >>> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >>> Rue. >>> >> >>> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >>> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >>> possible. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Kind regards >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Joy Liddicoat >>> >> >>> >> Project Coordinator >>> >> >>> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>> >> >>> >> www.apc.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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 17:32:25 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:32:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would be willing to work on a draft. I see we would like to send a statement by 29 February, but the excerpted email below it suggests statements are due by the 13th of February. Will a statement from IGC be timely and accepted? Paul Lehto, J.D. On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. > If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for > contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the > statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a > Statement by the 29th February, 2012. > > The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place > between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: > http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx > > *Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email:* > Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual > report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session > will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of > Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel > event. > >> > >> > >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be > planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) > and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you > are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and > cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country > reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. > >> > >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the > panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if > possible. > >> > > Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human > Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting > in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? > > Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human > rights:- > > - privacy > - security > - freedom of expression > - intellectual property > > or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the >> Agenda: >> >> >> See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true >> >> >> Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet >> >> On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision >> to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at >> its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative >> of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. >> This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom >> of expression on the Internet. >> >> "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human >> rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister >> for Foreign Affairs. >> >> Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and >> protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, >> presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN >> Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl >> Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in >> La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of >> influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. >> This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude >> today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and >> representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and >> civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of >> expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human >> Rights Council for the first time. >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and >>> use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that >>> there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the >>> years. >>> >>> We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put >>> together a first draft for others to comment. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Robert, >>>> >>>> What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? >>>> Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. >>>> >>>> Best wishes & regards >>>> Shahzad >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Brett, >>>> > >>>> > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum >>>> should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that >>>> was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this >>>> past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and >>>> it was not accepted. >>>> > >>>> > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the >>>> meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes >>>> at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >>>> > is still being discussed. >>>> > >>>> > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated >>>> effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >>>> > >>>> > regards >>>> > >>>> > Robert >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > R. Guerra >>>> > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>> > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>> > >>>> > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Thanks Joy, >>>> >> >>>> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the >>>> High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb >>>> 29). >>>> >> >>>> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the >>>> realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil >>>> society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with >>>> confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the >>>> broader constellation of human rights. >>>> >> >>>> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and >>>> recommendations can be found here: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>>> >> >>>> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the >>>> actual Panel. >>>> >> >>>> >> Brett >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Brett Solomon >>>> >> Executive Director | Access >>>> >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>>> >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>>> >> Dear colleagues, >>>> >> >>>> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights >>>> Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>>> >> >>>> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >>>> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >>>> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >>>> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >>>> the panel event. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >>>> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >>>> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >>>> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >>>> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >>>> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >>>> Rue. >>>> >> >>>> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >>>> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >>>> possible. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Kind regards >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Joy Liddicoat >>>> >> >>>> >> Project Coordinator >>>> >> >>>> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>>> >> >>>> >> www.apc.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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 17:40:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:40:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > I would be willing to work on a draft. I see we would like to send a > statement by 29 February, but the excerpted email below it suggests > statements are due by the 13th of February. Will a statement from IGC be > timely and accepted? > The Submissions with the 13th February, 2012 are for the Council meeting but the meeting starts in the tail end of February and should not stop us from publishing a Statement although in retrospect it would have been great to make submissions for the 13th. Be great if you could initiate the draft Paul and put to the list so that we can call for contributions and comments etc before we initiate the rough consensus from the list. Best Regards, Sala > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a >> statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we >> can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 >> hours through the statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would >> like to send a Statement by the 29th February, 2012. >> >> The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place >> between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: >> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx >> >> *Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email:* >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >> the panel event. >> >> >> >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >> Rue. >> >> >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >> possible. >> >> >> >> Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human >> Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting >> in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? >> >> Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human >> rights:- >> >> - privacy >> - security >> - freedom of expression >> - intellectual property >> >> or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the >>> Agenda: >>> >>> >>> See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true >>> >>> >>> Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet >>> >>> On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision >>> to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at >>> its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative >>> of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. >>> This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom >>> of expression on the Internet. >>> >>> "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human >>> rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister >>> for Foreign Affairs. >>> >>> Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and >>> protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, >>> presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN >>> Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl >>> Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in >>> La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of >>> influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. >>> This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude >>> today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and >>> representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and >>> civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of >>> expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human >>> Rights Council for the first time. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and >>>> use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that >>>> there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the >>>> years. >>>> >>>> We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put >>>> together a first draft for others to comment. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Robert, >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? >>>>> Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes & regards >>>>> Shahzad >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Brett, >>>>> > >>>>> > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance >>>>> Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, >>>>> that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva >>>>> this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the >>>>> proposal and it was not accepted. >>>>> > >>>>> > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the >>>>> meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes >>>>> at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >>>>> > is still being discussed. >>>>> > >>>>> > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated >>>>> effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >>>>> > >>>>> > regards >>>>> > >>>>> > Robert >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > R. Guerra >>>>> > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>> > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>>> > >>>>> > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Thanks Joy, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the >>>>> High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb >>>>> 29). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the >>>>> realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil >>>>> society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with >>>>> confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the >>>>> broader constellation of human rights. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and >>>>> recommendations can be found here: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>>>> >> >>>>> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the >>>>> actual Panel. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Brett >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> Brett Solomon >>>>> >> Executive Director | Access >>>>> >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>>>> >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>>>> >> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights >>>>> Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >>>>> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >>>>> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >>>>> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >>>>> the panel event. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >>>>> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >>>>> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >>>>> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >>>>> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >>>>> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >>>>> Rue. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around >>>>> the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >>>>> possible. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Kind regards >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Joy Liddicoat >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Project Coordinator >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>>>> >> >>>>> >> www.apc.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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > > > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu Feb 23 18:17:02 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:17:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F46C8EE.8090903@apc.org> Dear colleagues I would like to clarify the following with regard to APC's MAG nominations to the IGC NomCom. 1. APC submitted our names for consideration by the IGC nomcom on 20 January in the template provided by the Secretariat, addressed to jam at jacquelinemorris.com. We did not receive a bounce of any kind and assumed our names were received. 2. After the NomCom published their selection on 1 February we wrote again to ask for confirmation that our names were received as only one of the names we proposed made it onto the list and we new that person had also been nominated by someone else. We were not questioning the NomCom process, we just wanted to check that all our names were considered. 3. Sala responded on 2 February to say we would need to wait for the NomCom report. 4. When the report was published on 15 February we noted that our names were not in the pool of names considered and we asked for clarification. We have still not received an explanation for why our names were not in the pool considered by the NomCom. We want to make it clear that: * APC did not question or criticize the NomCom process, we just wanted to know why the APC names were not considered, or, if it was just a case of a technical/spam issue resulting in the message not being received. * We did not ask the IGC at any time to endorse our names or forward them to the Secretariat. * We appreciate the IGC NomCom's offer to reopen the process but, as we said already, we feel this would not be fair to the current IGC nominees. We have in any case already sent our names directly to the Secretariat. Anriette Esterhuysen > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Sala, >> >> It’s not improper for the IGC to support nominees submitted by other >> organisations, or positions advocated by other organisations. The Nomcom is >> only responsible for submitting and deciding on IGC nominees – I am not >> suggesting at all that we change that or add additional names to IGC >> nominations. I agree that would be improper. However I don’t see why we >> shouldn’t express support for nominees of other organisations. >> >> The only reason we are discussing this at all is because of some sort of >> administrative stuff up that I don’t understand yet. I appreciate that the >> Nomcom has attempted to make amends at the last moment but the simple fact >> is that due to some process issue some very good names were not considered. >> >> Those good names of civil society people have been forwarded anyway. I think >> it is proper to indicate to the powers that be that we are supportive of >> those names being considered in addition to those IGC submitted, >> particularly in the circumstance where the number of names submitted by IGC >> is less than the number of vacancies that are out there to be filled. >> >> Ian >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 >> To: Ian Peter >> Cc: , Thomas Lowenhaupt >> , Valeria Betancourt , >> , Jacqueline Morris , >> shaila mistry , Anriette Esterhuysen >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without interference >> from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add names must be their >> decision solely and this is to preserve some level of independence. Once the >> NomCom makes the selection, the recommendations are then put forward by the >> IGC through the coordinators the Secretariat. In this case, one of the >> Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself from dealing with this >> administrative issue. >> >> For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list of Nominees >> would be improper unless the APC list was within the basket of nominees that >> they were considering and decide on their own accord that they accept the >> candidates and list them with other nominees. In this instance, APC has >> withdrawn its list of candidates from the NomCom and the NomCom should only >> review the list of candidates within its current basket. >> >> Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways we can >> improve the processes etc. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> All, >> >> As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the relevant >> UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, IGC is >> also supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people on this >> list would support such an action. >> >> (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn >> from the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that >> need further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC expressed >> support for the APC nominees. That’s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and >> may be our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > > >> Reply-To: > >, Thomas Lowenhaupt >> > >> >> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 >> To: Valeria Betancourt > >> Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > >, > >, Jacqueline Morris >> >, shaila mistry >> >, Anriette Esterhuysen >> >, >> > >> >> Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application >> >> >> All, >> >> The NomCom has been discussing adding APC names to the list to be >> submitted, and not subtracting those whom we had already selected, agreeing >> this would be unkind and unfair. >> >> If this agreeable, let us know. >> >> Best, >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >> >> >> Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC >> NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret that >> the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first >> phase of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened as this >> is not fair to the current list of nominees. We have submitted our names >> directly to the Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its >> procedures in the future. >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> Valeria >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 18:21:14 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:21:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: <4F46C8EE.8090903@apc.org> References: <4F46C8EE.8090903@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, Thank you for your email and the clarifications. I had sent a message offline that the NomCom had indicated that they would address it in their report. I wish the APC candidates well in the selection process. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear colleagues > > I would like to clarify the following with regard to APC's MAG > nominations to the IGC NomCom. > > 1. APC submitted our names for consideration by the IGC nomcom on 20 > January in the template provided by the Secretariat, addressed to > jam at jacquelinemorris.com. We did not receive a bounce of any kind and > assumed our names were received. > > 2. After the NomCom published their selection on 1 February we wrote > again to ask for confirmation that our names were received as only one > of the names we proposed made it onto the list and we new that person > had also been nominated by someone else. We were not questioning > the NomCom process, we just wanted to check that all our names were > considered. > > 3. Sala responded on 2 February to say we would need to wait for the > NomCom report. > > 4. When the report was published on 15 February we noted that our names > were not in the pool of names considered and we asked for clarification. > We have still not received an explanation for why our names were not in > the pool considered by the NomCom. > > We want to make it clear that: > > * APC did not question or criticize the NomCom process, we just wanted > to know why the APC names were not considered, or, if it was just a case > of a technical/spam issue resulting in the message not being received. > > * We did not ask the IGC at any time to endorse our names or forward > them to the Secretariat. > > * We appreciate the IGC NomCom's offer to reopen the process but, as we > said already, we feel this would not be fair to the current IGC > nominees. We have in any case already sent our names directly to the > Secretariat. > > Anriette Esterhuysen > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > >> Sala, > >> > >> It’s not improper for the IGC to support nominees submitted by other > >> organisations, or positions advocated by other organisations. The > Nomcom is > >> only responsible for submitting and deciding on IGC nominees – I am not > >> suggesting at all that we change that or add additional names to IGC > >> nominations. I agree that would be improper. However I don’t see why we > >> shouldn’t express support for nominees of other organisations. > >> > >> The only reason we are discussing this at all is because of some sort of > >> administrative stuff up that I don’t understand yet. I appreciate that > the > >> Nomcom has attempted to make amends at the last moment but the simple > fact > >> is that due to some process issue some very good names were not > considered. > >> > >> Those good names of civil society people have been forwarded anyway. I > think > >> it is proper to indicate to the powers that be that we are supportive of > >> those names being considered in addition to those IGC submitted, > >> particularly in the circumstance where the number of names submitted by > IGC > >> is less than the number of vacancies that are out there to be filled. > >> > >> Ian > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 > >> To: Ian Peter > >> Cc: , Thomas Lowenhaupt > >> , Valeria Betancourt , > >> , Jacqueline Morris < > jam at jacquelinemorris.com>, > >> shaila mistry , Anriette Esterhuysen < > anriette at apc.org> > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application > >> > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without > interference > >> from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add names must be their > >> decision solely and this is to preserve some level of independence. > Once the > >> NomCom makes the selection, the recommendations are then put forward by > the > >> IGC through the coordinators the Secretariat. In this case, one of the > >> Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself from dealing with this > >> administrative issue. > >> > >> For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list of > Nominees > >> would be improper unless the APC list was within the basket of nominees > that > >> they were considering and decide on their own accord that they accept > the > >> candidates and list them with other nominees. In this instance, APC has > >> withdrawn its list of candidates from the NomCom and the NomCom should > only > >> review the list of candidates within its current basket. > >> > >> Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways we > can > >> improve the processes etc. > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > >> > >> All, > >> > >> As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the > relevant > >> UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, IGC > is > >> also supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people on > this > >> list would support such an action. > >> > >> (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn > >> from the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that > >> need further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC > expressed > >> support for the APC nominees. That’s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, > and > >> may be our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Thomas Lowenhaupt >> > > >> Reply-To: >> >, Thomas Lowenhaupt > >> > > >> > >> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 > >> To: Valeria Betancourt > > >> Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > >> >, < > nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org > >> >, Jacqueline Morris > >> >, shaila > mistry > >> >, Anriette Esterhuysen > >> >, > >> > > >> > >> Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application > >> > >> > >> All, > >> > >> The NomCom has been discussing adding APC names to the list to be > >> submitted, and not subtracting those whom we had already selected, > agreeing > >> this would be unkind and unfair. > >> > >> If this agreeable, let us know. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Tom Lowenhaupt > >> > >> On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC > >> NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret > that > >> the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first > >> phase of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened as > this > >> is not fair to the current list of nominees. We have submitted our > names > >> directly to the Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its > >> procedures in the future. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Valeria > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org < > http://governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> > >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 23 19:32:37 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:32:37 +1200 Subject: [governance] The White House on Privacy [New Release] Message-ID: Dear All, The White House has just released "Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: a Framework for protecting Privacy and promoting innovation in a global digital economy" See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/email-files/privacy_white_paper.pdf I found page 25 interesting. Enjoy. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Feb 24 03:31:35 2012 From: joy at apc.org (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:31:35 +1300 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005c01ccf2ce$bbb88a80$33299f80$@apc.org> Hi all - the deadline for making written submissions to the HRC has passed. However, it is still possible to send comments (treated as informal but still published) on the panel concept paper (copy attached - this has the questions the panel will discuss). These comments can be sent to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We will send another update on more detailed activities soon but, if it is helpful, our key messages will include that the panel is important and should be supported because: a) our human rights apply on the internet b) therefore the HRC must build the internet into its work (that includes its procedures like the UPR, special mandate holders, OHCHR etc) c) governments also need to respect, protect and promote these at national level (including access) d) all human rights organisations need to consider this and e) this is critical now because of FX and the role of the internet in enabling other rights, like development, democratisation and so on Kind regards Joy From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Friday, 24 February 2012 11:40 a.m. To: Paul Lehto Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Shahzad Ahmad; Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: I would be willing to work on a draft. I see we would like to send a statement by 29 February, but the excerpted email below it suggests statements are due by the 13th of February. Will a statement from IGC be timely and accepted? The Submissions with the 13th February, 2012 are for the Council meeting but the meeting starts in the tail end of February and should not stop us from publishing a Statement although in retrospect it would have been great to make submissions for the 13th. Be great if you could initiate the draft Paul and put to the list so that we can call for contributions and comments etc before we initiate the rough consensus from the list. Best Regards, Sala Paul Lehto, J.D. On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a Statement by the 29th February, 2012. The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19Regul arSession.aspx Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email: Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression's annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >> Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human rights:- * privacy * security * freedom of expression * intellectual property or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the Agenda: See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet. "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council for the first time. On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the years. We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put together a first draft for others to comment. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: Dear Robert, What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. Best wishes & regards Shahzad Sent from my iPhone On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Brett, > > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. > > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative > is still being discussed. > > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > >> Thanks Joy, >> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). >> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the broader constellation of human rights. >> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations can be found here: >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human- rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual Panel. >> >> Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Solomon >> Executive Director | Access >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression's annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >> >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> Project Coordinator >> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >> >> www.apc.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Concept paper - panel on FOE and Internet.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 35226 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 anriette at apc.org Fri Feb 24 03:49:39 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:49:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: <005c01ccf2ce$bbb88a80$33299f80$@apc.org> References: <005c01ccf2ce$bbb88a80$33299f80$@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F474F23.3030904@apc.org> Just adding one other message that I will try to get across next Wednesday: > a) our human rights apply on the internet > > b) therefore the HRC must build the internet into its work (that > includes its procedures like the UPR, special mandate holders, OHCHR etc) > > c) governments also need to respect, protect and promote these at > national level (including access) > > d) all human rights organisations need to consider this and > > e) this is critical now because of FX and the role of the internet in > enabling other rights, like development, democratisation and so on > f) respect for human rights on the internet is an issue everywhere, not just in developing countries... as illustrated by trends in the US to use IP protection to limit the free flow of information, UK threats to restrict social networking during the London riots and so on.. Anriette > > Kind regards > > > > Joy > > > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Salanieta > T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Sent:* Friday, 24 February 2012 11:40 a.m. > *To:* Paul Lehto > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Shahzad Ahmad; Robert Guerra > *Subject:* Re: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement > from IGC???] > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Paul Lehto > wrote: > > I would be willing to work on a draft. I see we would like to send a > statement by 29 February, but the excerpted email below it suggests > statements are due by the 13th of February. Will a statement from IGC > be timely and accepted? > > > The Submissions with the 13th February, 2012 are for the Council meeting > but the meeting starts in the tail end of February and should not stop > us from publishing a Statement although in retrospect it would have been > great to make submissions for the 13th. > > Be great if you could initiate the draft Paul and put to the list so > that we can call for contributions and comments etc before we initiate > the rough consensus from the list. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a > statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft > so we can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the > list for 48 hours through the statement workspace which can then be > sent on. We would like to send a Statement by the 29th February, 2012. > > The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place > between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: > http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx > > *Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email:* > Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s > annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. > The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by > the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and > participating in the panel event. > >> > >> > >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might > be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday > 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support > these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would > encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org > released in December 2011 which includes > 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction > from Frank La Rue. > >> > >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around > the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or > collaborate if possible. > >> > > Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to > Human Rights on the list through the various threads, we should > consider putting in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? > > Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of > human rights:- > > * privacy > * security > * freedom of expression > * intellectual property > > or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the > Agenda: > > > See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true > > > Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet > > On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a > decision to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on > the Internet at its next session in March 2012. The decision was > adopted on the initiative of Sweden, with the support of over fifty > states from throughout the world. This will be the first time that > the Council discusses the issue of freedom of expression on the > Internet. > > "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human > rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, > Minister for Foreign Affairs. > > Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and > protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank > La Rue, presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. > At the UN Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for > Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt gave a speech in support of several of > the conclusions presented in La Rue's report. Sweden's address won > the support of a number of influential countries, including India, > Brazil and South Africa. > > This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will > conclude today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of > experts and representatives of governments, the UN system, the > business sector and civil society to discuss the issue. This means > that the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet will be > placed on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council for the first time. > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 > and use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also > note that there has been alot of discussions around this theme > specifically over the years. > > We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put > together a first draft for others to comment. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad > > wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? > Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if > possible. > > Best wishes & regards > Shahzad > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra > wrote: > > > Brett, > > > > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance > Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", > well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place > in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of > consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. > > > > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the > meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting > themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative > > is still being discussed. > > > > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated > effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. > > > > regards > > > > Robert > > > > > > -- > > R. Guerra > > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > > > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > > > >> Thanks Joy, > >> > >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of > the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the > Internet (Feb 29). > >> > >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the > realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, > civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot > act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online > access to the broader constellation of human rights. > >> > >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and > recommendations can be found here: > >> > >> > https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights > >> > >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the > actual Panel. > >> > >> Brett > >> > >> -- > >> Brett Solomon > >> Executive Director | Access > >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org > > >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: > brettsolomon | @accessnow > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat > wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, > >> > >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human > Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). > >> > >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of > Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held > during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is > being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be > attending and participating in the panel event. > >> > >> > >> > >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might > be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday > 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support > these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would > encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org > released in December 2011 which includes > 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction > from Frank La Rue. > >> > >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around > the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or > collaborate if possible. > >> > >> > >> > >> Kind regards > >> > >> > >> > >> Joy Liddicoat > >> > >> Project Coordinator > >> > >> Internet Rights are Human Rights > >> > >> www.apc.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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 03:55:30 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:55:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: <4F474F23.3030904@apc.org> References: <005c01ccf2ce$bbb88a80$33299f80$@apc.org> <4F474F23.3030904@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Joy and Anriette. Paul is drafting the initial text. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Just adding one other message that I will try to get across next Wednesday: > > > a) our human rights apply on the internet > > > > b) therefore the HRC must build the internet into its work (that > > includes its procedures like the UPR, special mandate holders, OHCHR etc) > > > > c) governments also need to respect, protect and promote these at > > national level (including access) > > > > d) all human rights organisations need to consider this and > > > > e) this is critical now because of FX and the role of the internet in > > enabling other rights, like development, democratisation and so on > > > > f) respect for human rights on the internet is an issue everywhere, not > just in developing countries... as illustrated by trends in the US to > use IP protection to limit the free flow of information, UK threats to > restrict social networking during the London riots and so on.. > > Anriette > > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > > > > > Joy > > > > > > > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Salanieta > > T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > *Sent:* Friday, 24 February 2012 11:40 a.m. > > *To:* Paul Lehto > > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Shahzad Ahmad; Robert Guerra > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement > > from IGC???] > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Paul Lehto > > wrote: > > > > I would be willing to work on a draft. I see we would like to send a > > statement by 29 February, but the excerpted email below it suggests > > statements are due by the 13th of February. Will a statement from IGC > > be timely and accepted? > > > > > > The Submissions with the 13th February, 2012 are for the Council meeting > > but the meeting starts in the tail end of February and should not stop > > us from publishing a Statement although in retrospect it would have been > > great to make submissions for the 13th. > > > > Be great if you could initiate the draft Paul and put to the list so > > that we can call for contributions and comments etc before we initiate > > the rough consensus from the list. > > > > Best Regards, > > Sala > > > > > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a > > statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft > > so we can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the > > list for 48 hours through the statement workspace which can then be > > sent on. We would like to send a Statement by the 29th February, > 2012. > > > > The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place > > between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: > > > http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx > > > > *Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email:* > > Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s > > annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. > > The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by > > the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and > > participating in the panel event. > > >> > > >> > > >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might > > be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday > > 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support > > these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would > > encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org > > released in December 2011 which includes > > 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction > > from Frank La Rue. > > >> > > >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around > > the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or > > collaborate if possible. > > >> > > > > Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to > > Human Rights on the list through the various threads, we should > > consider putting in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? > > > > Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of > > human rights:- > > > > * privacy > > * security > > * freedom of expression > > * intellectual property > > > > or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > > > > The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the > > Agenda: > > > > > > See: > http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true > > > > > > Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet > > > > On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a > > decision to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on > > the Internet at its next session in March 2012. The decision was > > adopted on the initiative of Sweden, with the support of over fifty > > states from throughout the world. This will be the first time that > > the Council discusses the issue of freedom of expression on the > > Internet. > > > > "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human > > rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, > > Minister for Foreign Affairs. > > > > Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and > > protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank > > La Rue, presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. > > At the UN Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for > > Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt gave a speech in support of several of > > the conclusions presented in La Rue's report. Sweden's address won > > the support of a number of influential countries, including India, > > Brazil and South Africa. > > > > This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will > > conclude today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of > > experts and representatives of governments, the UN system, the > > business sector and civil society to discuss the issue. This means > > that the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet will be > > placed on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council for the first > time. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 > > and use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also > > note that there has been alot of discussions around this theme > > specifically over the years. > > > > We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put > > together a first draft for others to comment. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Robert, > > > > What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? > > Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if > > possible. > > > > Best wishes & regards > > Shahzad > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra > > wrote: > > > > > Brett, > > > > > > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance > > Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", > > well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place > > in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of > > consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. > > > > > > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the > > meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting > > themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative > > > is still being discussed. > > > > > > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated > > effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option > open. > > > > > > regards > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > -- > > > R. Guerra > > > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > > > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > > > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > > > > > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > > > > > >> Thanks Joy, > > >> > > >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of > > the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the > > Internet (Feb 29). > > >> > > >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the > > realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, > > civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot > > act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online > > access to the broader constellation of human rights. > > >> > > >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and > > recommendations can be found here: > > >> > > >> > > > https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights > > >> > > >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the > > actual Panel. > > >> > > >> Brett > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Brett Solomon > > >> Executive Director | Access > > >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org > > > > >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: > > brettsolomon | @accessnow > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat > > wrote: > > >> Dear colleagues, > > >> > > >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human > > Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). > > >> > > >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of > > Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held > > during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is > > being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be > > attending and participating in the panel event. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might > > be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday > > 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support > > these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would > > encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org > > released in December 2011 which includes > > 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction > > from Frank La Rue. > > >> > > >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around > > the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or > > collaborate if possible. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Kind regards > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Joy Liddicoat > > >> > > >> Project Coordinator > > >> > > >> Internet Rights are Human Rights > > >> > > >> www.apc.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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Fri Feb 24 04:05:35 2012 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:05:35 +0500 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: <005c01ccf2ce$bbb88a80$33299f80$@apc.org> References: <005c01ccf2ce$bbb88a80$33299f80$@apc.org> Message-ID: <091801ccf2d3$85cd3060$91679120$@pk> Thanks Joy, This is great. Please don't forget to add our statement and raising the issue of Internet Filtering in Pakistan. Best wishes and regards Shahzad From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:joy at apc.org] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:32 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro'; 'Paul Lehto' Cc: 'Shahzad Ahmad'; 'Robert Guerra' Subject: RE: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] Hi all - the deadline for making written submissions to the HRC has passed. However, it is still possible to send comments (treated as informal but still published) on the panel concept paper (copy attached - this has the questions the panel will discuss). These comments can be sent to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We will send another update on more detailed activities soon but, if it is helpful, our key messages will include that the panel is important and should be supported because: a) our human rights apply on the internet b) therefore the HRC must build the internet into its work (that includes its procedures like the UPR, special mandate holders, OHCHR etc) c) governments also need to respect, protect and promote these at national level (including access) d) all human rights organisations need to consider this and e) this is critical now because of FX and the role of the internet in enabling other rights, like development, democratisation and so on Kind regards Joy From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Friday, 24 February 2012 11:40 a.m. To: Paul Lehto Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Shahzad Ahmad; Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: I would be willing to work on a draft. I see we would like to send a statement by 29 February, but the excerpted email below it suggests statements are due by the 13th of February. Will a statement from IGC be timely and accepted? The Submissions with the 13th February, 2012 are for the Council meeting but the meeting starts in the tail end of February and should not stop us from publishing a Statement although in retrospect it would have been great to make submissions for the 13th. Be great if you could initiate the draft Paul and put to the list so that we can call for contributions and comments etc before we initiate the rough consensus from the list. Best Regards, Sala Paul Lehto, J.D. On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a Statement by the 29th February, 2012. The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19Regul arSession.aspx Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email: Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression's annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >> Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human rights:- * privacy * security * freedom of expression * intellectual property or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the Agenda: See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet. "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council for the first time. On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the years. We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put together a first draft for others to comment. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: Dear Robert, What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. Best wishes & regards Shahzad Sent from my iPhone On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Brett, > > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. > > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative > is still being discussed. > > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > >> Thanks Joy, >> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). >> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the broader constellation of human rights. >> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations can be found here: >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human- rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual Panel. >> >> Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Solomon >> Executive Director | Access >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression's annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >> >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> Project Coordinator >> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >> >> www.apc.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Fri Feb 24 04:12:25 2012 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:12:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] Locking up the Cyberspace in Pakistan Message-ID: <092001ccf2d4$6f6a0770$4e3e1650$@pk> Dear colleagues, Bytes for All, Pakistan have issued a public statement regarding Pakistan government's plan for Internet filtering in the country. We have also called on UNHRC to take a note of this issue. We have also requested international companies to please refrain from bidding for the proposed system and show their support for freedom of expression, speech and opinion in Pakistan. We fear that Internet will be further restricted nearing general elections in 2013. Accessible at this link: http://content.bytesforall.pk/node/39 Best wishes and regards Shahzad Ahmad www.bytesforall.pk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Feb 24 11:58:52 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:58:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] I'm "virtually" baffled - a side-glance at "remote participation" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is an example where Internet activity can be, and often is, more regulated by the criminal law than actual in-person conduct. In the article Aldo links to, the adult male police officer in the small town in Pennsylvania (age of consent = 16) with apparently nothing local to work on monitors an internet chat room instead, posing as a 15 year old girl just a few days or months away from the age of consent in Pennsylvania. A reasonable person might think that the chat room verification of age of at least 18 to enter the site might provide a reasonable doubt as to intent, but that reasonable person would be wrong (at least in this case). A reasonable person might think that fantasy-based words and/or activity would be less regulated than actual in-person sexual activity, but that reasonable person would be wrong again, because the existence of internet servers in multiple states virtually always guarantees that federal law can be applied under the interstate commerce clause, even where the two chat participants are physically in the same state. In general, persons seeking to conform their sexual conduct to the law specifically on the internet must apply the most restrictive of all applicable state and federal laws to their activity, even if they are clearly both in the same state. In fact, had actual sexual activity occurred in person, there would be no "age of consent" issue, because both were, in fact, adults, and the officer was old enough that this fact would be obviously apparent, along with the fact that the officer was actually male, not female. The actual prosecution in this case is under a federal statute that makes it a crime to use the instruments of interstate commerce (internet, telephone, etc) to "persuade" "incite" or "coerce" a person under the age of 18 to engage in sexual activity. The presence of the web cam on the computer of the accused is held to remove these kinds of cases from the protection of the First Amendment, on the grounds that it is CONDUCT that is proscribed, not speech. The "conduct" in this case is persuasion or solicitation of a minor for sexual purposes, and the focus of the statute has been held to be on the defendant's CONDUCT and intent, not the actual situation of the victim, which is why adult male police officers can pose as underage girls and still get away with a prosecution. From this perspective, it also follows that arguments that the statute is prohibiting things in the nature of "thought crimes" will not prevail in court, again on the grounds that it is the conduct in furtherance of the illegal intent that is proscribed by the statute. The actual defendant in this case was also a former US Marine, and might reasonably have assumed that the US Code of Military Justice (providing an age of consent of 16 but also requiring evidence of duress, force or coercion for ages 13-15) would be the strictest law around given the honor codes of the Marines, but here again a reasonable Marine would be legally quite wrong. A reasonable US citizen might also think that travel abroad would result in the laws of the country of visitation applying to sexual conduct, and thus reason that a trip to London and a dalliance with a 16 or 17 year old Londoner would be legally permissible given the UK age of consent of 16, but here again US law is h eld to apply to US citizens even in their activities abroad, so again the most restrictive "applicable law" must be applied to one's conduct, and US federal law is, surprisingly, applicable to US citizens worldwide when it comes to sexual conduct. This extraterritorial application of US law to US citizens is not only a trap for the unwary participant in sex tourism situations, but also a potential trap for the US graduate student spending some time abroad and meeting a 16 or 17 year old in a bar in a country where the drinking age is lower than in the US or where IDs are either not rigorously checked or fake IDs are readily available. With regard to fake IDs, numerous US cases involving statutory rape (consensual sex with under-age-of-consent person) have held that "mistake of fact" as to the minor's age is no defense, EVEN WHEN the minor presents a fake ID appearing to conclusively prove an age that is perfectly legal for purposes of competent consent. One other internet-related twist. Had the defendant web-published his web cam video of his CONDUCT on a website with appropriate but not foolproof age verification, and his video happened to be seen by 1 or even 1 hundred thousand minors (on account of becoming viral somehow), there could be no prosecution, because the conduct was not directed at persuading, enticing or encouraging minors. It is a close question, but probably a broadly distributed "adults only" video entitled "An Appeal to 15 to 17 year old Young Ladies" containing contact information at the end stating "you've seen my video, now call me, for a good time, at 867-5309" would not result in a *successful* prosecution (though it may result in a prosecution). Regardless of whether this last example holds true, it is nevertheless the case that there would be a big internet distinction in terms of criminal law's applicability based on whether one uses "push" technology like email or chat, or "pull" technology like websites, so long as the "pull" approach doesn't target a specific real person that either is a minor, or is a cop both claiming to be a minor and claiming to be of the opposite sex as well. One historian has commented that historical treatments on age of consent issues are amongst the most fascinating proof that historians are very commonly unable to escape the cultural mores and biases of their own times and specific culture (discussing the uncritical reviews in various ages of both very low and very high ages of consent, together with related variations historically scene in the law of competency to engage in sexual activity or fantasy) Salanieta suggests some consideration of verification requirements for remote participation. To the very best of my knowledge, IGF remote participation involves zero sexual activity, so laws like these would not apply. But if I misapprehend the full scope of activity via IGF remote participation (ha ha) and it did include sexual fantasy or conduct or solicitation (as opposed to merely viewing videos generally published) then all the verification anyone might dream of doing will still not guarantee the freedom of willing participants to consent to the same, because even a known adult person aged 45 or so can legitimately gain entry to remote participation and then lie and say they are a 15, 16 or 17 year old minor, and suddenly the whole universe of the law changes radically, even though reasonable people can easily reason that it doesn't, or shouldn't. Finally, despite the conviction in the case below, I am not convinced, as Aldo at least appears to be, that the person needs "psychological help" given his most intentional act was selecting a chat site dedicated specifically to adults, and thus could have reasonably assumed that the person on the other end was engaging in pure fantasy in stating "she" was 15, which "fantasy" was, indeed, actually not real. It seems a much stronger case for the kind of perversion or at least strangeness that can lead to calls for others to get "psychological help" can be made for the small town male cop posing as a 15 year old girl in a chat room, which is a more unusual (shall we say) sexual activity than is the phone or "video-phone" sex that the person was convicted for. Here we have a case where the basically honest, intelligent person who selects an adults-only chat room is essentially entrapped by a dishonest cop lying wildly about both age and gender, and no actual minor was either involved or even arguably harmed, and yet for some reason this is ONLY unseemly for the defendant Mr. Ritter? It seems to me that the overbreadth of the law in this area is also shameful and embarrassing, the fact that internet speech/conduct is more regulated than actual physical sexual contact is shameful and embarrassing, and (if you read a legal case in this area) the kind of legal gymnastic acrobatics that too many courts engage in so as to ensure the punishment of defendants like Mr. Ritter who have not created a single actual victim is shameful and embarrassing and also a form of (legal) obscenity and abuses and degrades the law in a way that is metaphorically pornographic. Paul Lehto, J.D. PS For US citizens (at least) on the internet, there is a phrase more powerful than "No" or "Stop" in "meat space". That phrase is "I am under 18 years old". THis phrase is especially powerful because it does not even need to be true! Amazing. On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > Opening the NYT Magazine this morning, I was baffled by a long article > describing a “virtual reality” crime with real "prison time" consequences. > Read my consideration first, though. > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html > > Pared to the barest bones, the event is as follows. A man on the web > enters an “adult chat-room” (i.e. self-declaration >18y) and anonymously > engages is explicit conversation with another person there. At one point > the chat-partner tells him she is under age. He has no way of verifying the > statement. He then proceeds to masturbate in front of his web-camera. > > It so happened that the chat-partner was an under-cover policeman. The man > was eventually sentenced to a minimum of 18 month and up to 5.5 years in > jail. > > That the man needs psychological help is undisputed. Whether 18 months in > jail will persuade him “*to take responsibility” *for what he’s done – so > the Judge – is open to debate. > > Let’s look at the circumstances of the case, however: the whole thing took > place in a virtual loop. The man was in no position to verify with whom he > chatted. For all he knew, no one was watching what he did, nor was the > person forced to watch what he was doing. He did not propose a face to face > encounter. The baffling question to me is: was there a crime to begin with? > > I see a wider connection to “remote participation” – to what extent might > one be liable for passive or active “remote participation”, or even simply > being on a list? > > What makes the matter poignant – yet distracting – is that the man was > Scott RITTER, who looked in vain for WMD in IRAQ is the run-up to the war > and warned that there weren’t any. That’s the human angle – and what > accounts for the 9 pages. > Aldo > > -- > Aldo Matteucci > 65, Pourtalèsstr. > CH 3074 MURI b. Bern > Switzerland > aldo.matteucci at gmail.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 12:00:50 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 05:00:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This is a friendly reminder that there is still another 26 hours to go if you would like to make further edits and comments on the new insertions to the Statement on remote participation. Let us have your thoughts. Once the 26 hours has lapsed, we will take the final document and send as the IGC Statement to the IGF Secretariat. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The Statement that I had sent in-text reflecting the new contributions etc > is now on the Statement Workspace. I would urge you to visit > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 where you can comment on > specific paragraphs and suggest changes, amendments and variations or > reflections and thoughts. > > With our original Statement that was developed, was given to the CSTD who > have* *facilitated our concerns. This newly edited Statement is put to > the list for another 48 hours which will form the official IGC position, so > please make your voices heard. This will be sent to the IGF Secretariat. > > Warm Regards from Fiji, > Sala > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 15:00:54 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:00:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive analysis of the process, including of remote participation. The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big push. Marília On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Adam said: > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and > exciting. > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and > illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during > last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. > Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and > more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they > boil down to just one: > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of a > remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote > participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an > automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion > of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the > presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one > of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have > 'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation > and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers > and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the > privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in > the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might ask > the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might > include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and > process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations. > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG > catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the > IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever > appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be > institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral > part of the IGF meeting process. > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been > started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the > different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one > frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress > the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to > energize forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better > strategy and focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made > comments on the existing statement, because I would re-write it completely, > with a different approach, with points I have made above. > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have > the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so > I have not done so. > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > participation! > > Ginger > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > *The latest from Diplo....*From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most > exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May 2012: > *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and *E-diplomacy*. > Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses** > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Comment below: >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much >> easier >> > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, >> > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. >> > >> > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on >> the >> > Statement Workspace as well: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE >> > PARTICIPATION >> > >> > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet >> Governance >> > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last >> five >> > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind the >> > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We have seen >> how >> > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with >> extraordinary >> > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment that enables >> the >> > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and >> > ultimately access. >> > >> > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN >> DESA >> > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote >> Participation. >> > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote >> > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with >> remote >> > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to make >> > remote participation a reality. >> > >> > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is a >> > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >> > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and >> the >> > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >> > >> > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >> part >> > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to >> sustain >> > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >> participation. >> > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to >> address >> > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be >> > addressed[1]. >> > >> > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >> ensure >> > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not >> just >> > the Main Sessions. >> > >> >> from the Nairobi chair's summary document: >> >> "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from >> the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop >> meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time >> transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were >> made available through the IGF Website." >> >> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from >> > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was >> > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society >> Coordinator >> > Vittorio Bertola. >> > >> > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >> with the >> > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, >> (the >> > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively >> > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. >> > >> > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting >> > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one >> > function. >> > >> > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the >> > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >> work >> > together to bring them about: >> > >> > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants >> > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >> equal >> > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >> > >> > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> bandwidth to >> > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to >> > enable greater interactions from offline participants. >> > >> > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and >> > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, >> > facilitators and chairs. >> > >> > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, >> > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >> through >> > RP that will be available. >> > >> > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators >> (who >> > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for >> > interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current >> speaker, >> > the Chair and the remote participants). >> > >> > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants >> > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically >> present >> > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> > >> > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> > participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> > >> > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >> as >> > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting >> > >> > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> > presentations access through RP. >> > >> > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >> that >> > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >> ensure >> > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to >> ensure >> > improved remote participation processes. >> > >> > Because only limited funds are available for face- to >> -face participation, >> > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all >> > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who >> wish >> > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central >> role in >> > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote >> > participation. >> > >> > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private >> > sector in enhancing remote participation. >> > >> > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to >> > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. >> > >> > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >> > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >> > countries could access the IGF. >> > >> > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where >> > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> > >> > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a >> > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >> > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >> sustain >> > the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> > >> > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also >> > include the following:- >> > >> > · Outreach. >> > >> > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> > >> > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before >> the >> > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. >> > >> > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators >> whilst >> > noting the limitations. >> > >> > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and >> governments >> > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. >> > >> > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and >> national, >> > sub regional and regional IGFs. >> > >> > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines >> and >> > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants >> > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. >> > >> > Ends >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > >> > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Sala, >> >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching up >> >> with reading the messages. >> >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >> >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from >> >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the >> >> discussions today? >> >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >> >> De >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Dear Deirdre, >> >>> >> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society >> component >> >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >> >>> >> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >> >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be >> >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >> >>> >> >>> Kind Regards, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>> >> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > >> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Feb 24 15:23:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:23:57 +1200 Subject: [governance] Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report In-Reply-To: <4F47E3F6.5020301@communisphere.com> References: <4F47E3F6.5020301@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly, allow me to take the time to thank the NomCom for completing the task that was assigned to them. The work of the NomCom is not an easy one. They faced extraordinary circumstances that made their work challenging. Their cover letter and report is enclosed. I thank all those who took the time to apply and congratulate the Nominees and note the recommendation by the NomCom to support APC's list of candidates. For those that did not make the selection, I hope that you will please try again when it opens up again. Kind Regards, Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Lowenhaupt Date: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:24 AM Subject: Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , "nomcom at lists.igcaucus.org" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report - February 24 2012.odt Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text Size: 27849 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 anriette at apc.org Fri Feb 24 18:04:03 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 01:04:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. places with much faster internet than what I have access to). As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a response. But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one incident. I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically present. RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors physically present at meetings. Anriette On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big push. > > Marília > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > Adam said: > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > important and exciting. > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > situations. > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different > approach, with points I have made above. > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made > previously, so I have not done so. > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > participation! > > Ginger > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake > wrote: > > Comment below: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making > it much easier > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, > Jovan, > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > place it on the > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON > REMOTE > > PARTICIPATION > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > Internet Governance > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over > the last five > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work > behind the > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We > have seen how > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with > extraordinary > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment > that enables the > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and > > ultimately access. > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > Secretariat and UN DESA > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > Participation. > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training > of remote > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss > with remote > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > Secretariat to make > > remote participation a reality. > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > participation is a > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > and we > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > meetings, and the > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > observers. > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > integral part > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > impossible to sustain > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > participation. > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together > to address > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have > yet to be > > addressed[1]. > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > host to ensure > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > and not just > > the Main Sessions. > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were > made available through the IGF Website." > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > people > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > about > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > team from > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > which was > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > Society Coordinator > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > occurred with the > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning > session, (the > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were > effectively > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty > in contacting > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > than one > > function. > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to > consider the > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > itself, and work > > together to bring them about: > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > participants > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > participants an equal > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > bandwidth to > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in > advance to > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > participation and > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > meeting hosts, > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > meetings, > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to > engage through > > RP that will be available. > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > coordinator/moderators (who > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > participants/current speaker, > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > participants > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > physically present > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > channel, as well as > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of > the meeting > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > interactive > > presentations access through RP. > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > Society that > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > Participation and to ensure > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > highlighted to ensure > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > -face participation, > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > meetings, and who wish > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a > central role in > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote > > participation. > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments > and private > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > tangible outcomes to > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > reality. > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is > extremely > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > countries and > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > these > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > culture where > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > methodology. > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored > as well > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > supply and > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to > maintain a > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > should also > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > capacity to sustain > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > should also > > include the following:- > > > > · Outreach. > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly > before the > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > Moderators whilst > > noting the limitations. > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society > and governments > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG > and national, > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > guidelines and > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 > participants > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > wrote: > >> > >> Dear Sala, > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just > catching up > >> with reading the messages. > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > although from > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > during the > >> discussions today? > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > >> De > >> > >> > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear Deirdre, > >>> > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > society component > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > >>> > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be > super > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We > will also be > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > Sir William > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 18:08:46 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:08:46 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> Message-ID: May I invite you all to please also comment on the Statement Workspace which is on the IGC website. it's marked final to distinguish it from the earlier draft. However, it is not final. On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). > > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a > response. > > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one > incident. > > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for > people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically > present. > > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors > physically present at meetings. > > Anriette > > > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > > > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big > push. > > > > Marília > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: > > > > Adam said: > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > > important and exciting. > > > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > > > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of > volunteers. > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for > volunteers. > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > > situations. > > > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional > IGFs. > > > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > > > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different > > approach, with points I have made above. > > > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made > > previously, so I have not done so. > > > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > > participation! > > > > Ginger > > > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Diplo Foundation > > > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > > > > > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake > > wrote: > > > > Comment below: > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making > > it much easier > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, > > Jovan, > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > > place it on the > > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON > > REMOTE > > > PARTICIPATION > > > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > > Internet Governance > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over > > the last five > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work > > behind the > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We > > have seen how > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with > > extraordinary > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment > > that enables the > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration > and > > > ultimately access. > > > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > > Secretariat and UN DESA > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > > Participation. > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training > > of remote > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss > > with remote > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > > Secretariat to make > > > remote participation a reality. > > > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > > participation is a > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > > and we > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the > Open > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > > meetings, and the > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > > observers. > > > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > > integral part > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > > impossible to sustain > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > > participation. > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together > > to address > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have > > yet to be > > > addressed[1]. > > > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > > host to ensure > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > > and not just > > > the Main Sessions. > > > > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided > from > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all > workshop > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings > were > > made available through the IGF Website." > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all > the > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > > people > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > > about > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > > team from > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > which was > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > Society Coordinator > > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > > occurred with the > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning > > session, (the > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were > > effectively > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty > > in contacting > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > > than one > > > function. > > > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to > > consider the > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > > itself, and work > > > together to bring them about: > > > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > > participants > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > > participants an equal > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > > bandwidth to > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in > > advance to > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > > participation and > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > > meeting hosts, > > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > > meetings, > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to > > engage through > > > RP that will be available. > > > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > coordinator/moderators (who > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible > for > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > > participants/current speaker, > > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > > participants > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > > physically present > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving > remote > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > > channel, as well as > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of > > the meeting > > > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > > interactive > > > presentations access through RP. > > > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that > has > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > > Society that > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > > Participation and to ensure > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > > highlighted to ensure > > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > > -face participation, > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > > meetings, and who wish > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a > > central role in > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes > remote > > > participation. > > > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments > > and private > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > > tangible outcomes to > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > > reality. > > > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is > > extremely > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > > countries and > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > > these > > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > > culture where > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > methodology. > > > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored > > as well > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > > supply and > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to > > maintain a > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > > should also > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > > capacity to sustain > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > > should also > > > include the following:- > > > > > > · Outreach. > > > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly > > before the > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > > Moderators whilst > > > noting the limitations. > > > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society > > and governments > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG > > and national, > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > guidelines and > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 > > participants > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear Sala, > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just > > catching up > > >> with reading the messages. > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > > although from > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > > during the > > >> discussions today? > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > > >> De > > >> > > >> > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Dear Deirdre, > > >>> > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > > society component > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > > >>> > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be > > super > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We > > will also be > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > >>> > > >>> Kind Regards, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >>> > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > > Sir William > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 18:20:32 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:20:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> Message-ID: I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we believe in it we can really make it happen. Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. Deirdre On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). > > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a > response. > > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one > incident. > > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for > people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically > present. > > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors > physically present at meetings. > > Anriette > > > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > > > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big > push. > > > > Marília > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: > > > > Adam said: > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > > important and exciting. > > > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > > > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of > volunteers. > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for > volunteers. > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > > situations. > > > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional > IGFs. > > > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > > > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different > > approach, with points I have made above. > > > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made > > previously, so I have not done so. > > > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > > participation! > > > > Ginger > > > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Diplo Foundation > > > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > > > > > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake > > wrote: > > > > Comment below: > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making > > it much easier > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, > > Jovan, > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > > place it on the > > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON > > REMOTE > > > PARTICIPATION > > > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > > Internet Governance > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over > > the last five > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work > > behind the > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We > > have seen how > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with > > extraordinary > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment > > that enables the > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration > and > > > ultimately access. > > > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > > Secretariat and UN DESA > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > > Participation. > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training > > of remote > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss > > with remote > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > > Secretariat to make > > > remote participation a reality. > > > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > > participation is a > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > > and we > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the > Open > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > > meetings, and the > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > > observers. > > > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > > integral part > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > > impossible to sustain > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > > participation. > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together > > to address > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have > > yet to be > > > addressed[1]. > > > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > > host to ensure > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > > and not just > > > the Main Sessions. > > > > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided > from > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all > workshop > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings > were > > made available through the IGF Website." > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all > the > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > > people > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > > about > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > > team from > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > which was > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > Society Coordinator > > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > > occurred with the > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning > > session, (the > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were > > effectively > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty > > in contacting > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > > than one > > > function. > > > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to > > consider the > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > > itself, and work > > > together to bring them about: > > > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > > participants > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > > participants an equal > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > > bandwidth to > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in > > advance to > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > > participation and > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > > meeting hosts, > > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > > meetings, > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to > > engage through > > > RP that will be available. > > > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > coordinator/moderators (who > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible > for > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > > participants/current speaker, > > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > > participants > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > > physically present > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving > remote > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > > channel, as well as > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of > > the meeting > > > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > > interactive > > > presentations access through RP. > > > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that > has > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > > Society that > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > > Participation and to ensure > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > > highlighted to ensure > > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > > -face participation, > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > > meetings, and who wish > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a > > central role in > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes > remote > > > participation. > > > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments > > and private > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > > tangible outcomes to > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > > reality. > > > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is > > extremely > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > > countries and > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > > these > > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > > culture where > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > methodology. > > > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored > > as well > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > > supply and > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to > > maintain a > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > > should also > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > > capacity to sustain > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > > should also > > > include the following:- > > > > > > · Outreach. > > > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly > > before the > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > > Moderators whilst > > > noting the limitations. > > > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society > > and governments > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG > > and national, > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > guidelines and > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 > > participants > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear Sala, > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just > > catching up > > >> with reading the messages. > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > > although from > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > > during the > > >> discussions today? > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > > >> De > > >> > > >> > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Dear Deirdre, > > >>> > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > > society component > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > > >>> > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be > > super > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We > > will also be > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > >>> > > >>> Kind Regards, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >>> > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > > Sir William > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 avri at ella.com Fri Feb 24 18:36:57 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:36:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org>! Message-ID: Hi, I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think I do. I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near total failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical sense unless the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other participants actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not think I have ever seen in a case where everyone was making allowance. The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and they really had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. avri On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: > I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. > What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. > And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we believe in it we can really make it happen. > Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. > Deirdre > > On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). > > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a > response. > > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one > incident. > > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for > people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically > present. > > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors > physically present at meetings. > > Anriette > > > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > > > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big push. > > > > Marília > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: > > > > Adam said: > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > > important and exciting. > > > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > > > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > > situations. > > > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. > > > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > > > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different > > approach, with points I have made above. > > > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made > > previously, so I have not done so. > > > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > > participation! > > > > Ginger > > > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Diplo Foundation > > > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > > > > > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake > > wrote: > > > > Comment below: > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making > > it much easier > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, > > Jovan, > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > > place it on the > > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON > > REMOTE > > > PARTICIPATION > > > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > > Internet Governance > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over > > the last five > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work > > behind the > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We > > have seen how > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with > > extraordinary > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment > > that enables the > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and > > > ultimately access. > > > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > > Secretariat and UN DESA > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > > Participation. > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training > > of remote > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss > > with remote > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > > Secretariat to make > > > remote participation a reality. > > > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > > participation is a > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > > and we > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > > meetings, and the > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > > observers. > > > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > > integral part > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > > impossible to sustain > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > > participation. > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together > > to address > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have > > yet to be > > > addressed[1]. > > > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > > host to ensure > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > > and not just > > > the Main Sessions. > > > > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were > > made available through the IGF Website." > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > > people > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > > about > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > > team from > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > which was > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > Society Coordinator > > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > > occurred with the > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning > > session, (the > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were > > effectively > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty > > in contacting > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > > than one > > > function. > > > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to > > consider the > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > > itself, and work > > > together to bring them about: > > > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > > participants > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > > participants an equal > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > > bandwidth to > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in > > advance to > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > > participation and > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > > meeting hosts, > > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > > meetings, > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to > > engage through > > > RP that will be available. > > > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > coordinator/moderators (who > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > > participants/current speaker, > > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > > participants > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > > physically present > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > > channel, as well as > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of > > the meeting > > > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > > interactive > > > presentations access through RP. > > > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > > Society that > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > > Participation and to ensure > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > > highlighted to ensure > > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > > -face participation, > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > > meetings, and who wish > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a > > central role in > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote > > > participation. > > > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments > > and private > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > > tangible outcomes to > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > > reality. > > > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is > > extremely > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > > countries and > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > > these > > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > > culture where > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > methodology. > > > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored > > as well > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > > supply and > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to > > maintain a > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > > should also > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > > capacity to sustain > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > > should also > > > include the following:- > > > > > > · Outreach. > > > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly > > before the > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > > Moderators whilst > > > noting the limitations. > > > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society > > and governments > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG > > and national, > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > guidelines and > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 > > participants > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear Sala, > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just > > catching up > > >> with reading the messages. > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > > although from > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > > during the > > >> discussions today? > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > > >> De > > >> > > >> > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Dear Deirdre, > > >>> > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > > society component > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > > >>> > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be > > super > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We > > will also be > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > >>> > > >>> Kind Regards, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >>> > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > > Sir William > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Feb 24 18:51:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:51:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks everyone how do you all propose to reach a compromise between what Adam raised and others are raising. Please make suggestions to drafting language in the Statement Workspace, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. > > I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think I > do. > I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near > total failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. > > Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical sense > unless the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other > participants actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not > think I have ever seen in a case where everyone was making allowance. > > The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and they > really had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. > > avri > > > > > On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. > > What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an > intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that > 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just > stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote > access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. > > And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. > Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're > only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we > believe in it we can really make it happen. > > Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. > > Deirdre > > > > On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not > > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have > > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based > > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered > > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that > > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. > > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). > > > > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF > > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having > > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible > > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the > > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, > > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a > > response. > > > > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been > > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched > > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one > > incident. > > > > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to > > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for > > people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically > > present. > > > > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The > > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that > > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to > > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is > > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be > > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors > > physically present at meetings. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > > > > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to > > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who > happen > > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society > > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > > > > > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and > human > > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the > fact > > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike > > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough > money > > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did > > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > > > > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as > > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly > > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. > > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we > > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process > > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big > push. > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque > > > wrote: > > > > > > Adam said: > > > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all > the > > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > people > > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > about > > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > > > important and exciting. > > > > > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an > example > > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details > draws > > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I > know > > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > > > > > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > > > > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the > > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean > > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation > > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have > > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and > > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had > > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' > to > > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation > > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. > > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, > seeking > > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of > volunteers. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for > volunteers. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > > > situations. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the > > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become > > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote > > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional > IGFs. > > > > > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that > > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as > > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > > > > > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which > has > > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and > > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in > > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. > We > > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly > > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different > > > approach, with points I have made above. > > > > > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not > > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made > > > previously, so I have not done so. > > > > > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > > > participation! > > > > > > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > Diplo Foundation > > > > > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to > the > > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting > in > > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and > > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake > > > wrote: > > > > > > Comment below: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making > > > it much easier > > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from > Schombe, > > > Jovan, > > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > > > place it on the > > > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON > > > REMOTE > > > > PARTICIPATION > > > > > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > > > Internet Governance > > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over > > > the last five > > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work > > > behind the > > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We > > > have seen how > > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand > with > > > extraordinary > > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment > > > that enables the > > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, > collaboration and > > > > ultimately access. > > > > > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > > > Secretariat and UN DESA > > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > > > Participation. > > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training > > > of remote > > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they > discuss > > > with remote > > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > > > Secretariat to make > > > > remote participation a reality. > > > > > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > > > participation is a > > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF) > > > and we > > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for > the Open > > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > > > meetings, and the > > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > > > observers. > > > > > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > > > integral part > > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > > > impossible to sustain > > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > > > participation. > > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working > together > > > to address > > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have > > > yet to be > > > > addressed[1]. > > > > > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > > > host to ensure > > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > > > and not just > > > > the Main Sessions. > > > > > > > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > > > > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided > from > > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all > workshop > > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real > time > > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings > were > > > made available through the IGF Website." > > > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with > the > > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen > all the > > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > > > people > > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > > > about > > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > > > team from > > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > > which was > > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > > Society Coordinator > > > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > > > occurred with the > > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning > > > session, (the > > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were > > > effectively > > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty > > > in contacting > > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > > > than one > > > > function. > > > > > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to > > > consider the > > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > > > itself, and work > > > > together to bring them about: > > > > > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > > > participants > > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > > > participants an equal > > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and > appropriate > > > bandwidth to > > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in > > > advance to > > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > > > participation and > > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > > > meeting hosts, > > > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of > all > > > meetings, > > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to > > > engage through > > > > RP that will be available. > > > > > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > > coordinator/moderators (who > > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible > for > > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > > > participants/current speaker, > > > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage > remote > > > participants > > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > > > physically present > > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving > remote > > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > > > channel, as well as > > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of > > > the meeting > > > > > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > > > interactive > > > > presentations access through RP. > > > > > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created > that has > > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > > > Society that > > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > > > Participation and to ensure > > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > > > highlighted to ensure > > > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > > > -face participation, > > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from > all > > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > > > meetings, and who wish > > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a > > > central role in > > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes > remote > > > > participation. > > > > > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments > > > and private > > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > > > tangible outcomes to > > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > > > reality. > > > > > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is > > > extremely > > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > > > countries and > > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any > of > > > these > > > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > > > culture where > > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > > methodology. > > > > > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored > > > as well > > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > > > supply and > > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to > > > maintain a > > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > > > should also > > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > > > capacity to sustain > > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > > > should also > > > > include the following:- > > > > > > > > · Outreach. > > > > > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground > significantly > > > before the > > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > > > Moderators whilst > > > > noting the limitations. > > > > > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society > > > and governments > > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF > RPWG > > > and national, > > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > > guidelines and > > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 > > > participants > > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Dear Sala, > > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just > > > catching up > > > >> with reading the messages. > > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > > > although from > > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > > > during the > > > >> discussions today? > > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > > > >> De > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Dear Deirdre, > > > >>> > > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > > > society component > > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > > > >>> > > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would > be > > > super > > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We > > > will also be > > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > > >>> > > > >>> Kind Regards, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > >>> > > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but > knowledge" > > > Sir William > > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 19:11:38 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:11:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> Message-ID: <63A180EF-A2ED-47A4-BD0C-8C63B68AC00E@acm.org> Hi, Does this drafting effort have an editor who is trying to massage it all into a coherent statement? I.e someone holding the proverbial pen? I recommend finding such a volunteer. I can't volunteer this time - though I will in the future for some other effort if we adopt such a habit, as I am already up to my ears in writing projects and am losing track of the proverbial pens I currently hold. avri On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:51, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thanks everyone how do you all propose to reach a compromise between what Adam raised and others are raising. Please make suggestions to drafting language in the Statement Workspace, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. > > I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think I do. > I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near total failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. > > Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical sense unless the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other participants actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not think I have ever seen in a case where everyone was making allowance. > > The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and they really had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. > > avri > > > > > On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. > > What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. > > And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we believe in it we can really make it happen. > > Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. > > Deirdre > > > > On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not > > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have > > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based > > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered > > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that > > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. > > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). > > > > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF > > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having > > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible > > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the > > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, > > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a > > response. > > > > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been > > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched > > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one > > incident. > > > > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to > > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for > > people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically > > present. > > > > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The > > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that > > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to > > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is > > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be > > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors > > physically present at meetings. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > > > > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to > > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen > > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society > > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > > > > > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human > > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact > > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike > > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money > > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did > > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > > > > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as > > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly > > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. > > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we > > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process > > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big push. > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque > > > wrote: > > > > > > Adam said: > > > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > > > important and exciting. > > > > > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example > > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws > > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know > > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > > > > > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > > > > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the > > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean > > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation > > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have > > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and > > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had > > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to > > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation > > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. > > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking > > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > > > situations. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the > > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become > > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote > > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. > > > > > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that > > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as > > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > > > > > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has > > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and > > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in > > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We > > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly > > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different > > > approach, with points I have made above. > > > > > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not > > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made > > > previously, so I have not done so. > > > > > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > > > participation! > > > > > > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > Diplo Foundation > > > > > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the > > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in > > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and > > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake > > > wrote: > > > > > > Comment below: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making > > > it much easier > > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, > > > Jovan, > > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > > > place it on the > > > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON > > > REMOTE > > > > PARTICIPATION > > > > > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > > > Internet Governance > > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over > > > the last five > > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work > > > behind the > > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We > > > have seen how > > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with > > > extraordinary > > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment > > > that enables the > > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and > > > > ultimately access. > > > > > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > > > Secretariat and UN DESA > > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > > > Participation. > > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training > > > of remote > > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss > > > with remote > > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > > > Secretariat to make > > > > remote participation a reality. > > > > > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > > > participation is a > > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > > > and we > > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > > > meetings, and the > > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > > > observers. > > > > > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > > > integral part > > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > > > impossible to sustain > > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > > > participation. > > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together > > > to address > > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have > > > yet to be > > > > addressed[1]. > > > > > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > > > host to ensure > > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > > > and not just > > > > the Main Sessions. > > > > > > > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > > > > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from > > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop > > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time > > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were > > > made available through the IGF Website." > > > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > > > people > > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > > > about > > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > > > team from > > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > > which was > > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > > Society Coordinator > > > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > > > occurred with the > > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning > > > session, (the > > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were > > > effectively > > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty > > > in contacting > > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > > > than one > > > > function. > > > > > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to > > > consider the > > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > > > itself, and work > > > > together to bring them about: > > > > > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > > > participants > > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > > > participants an equal > > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > > > bandwidth to > > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in > > > advance to > > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > > > participation and > > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > > > meeting hosts, > > > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > > > meetings, > > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to > > > engage through > > > > RP that will be available. > > > > > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > > coordinator/moderators (who > > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for > > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > > > participants/current speaker, > > > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > > > participants > > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > > > physically present > > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > > > channel, as well as > > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of > > > the meeting > > > > > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > > > interactive > > > > presentations access through RP. > > > > > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > > > Society that > > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > > > Participation and to ensure > > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > > > highlighted to ensure > > > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > > > -face participation, > > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > > > meetings, and who wish > > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a > > > central role in > > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote > > > > participation. > > > > > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments > > > and private > > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > > > tangible outcomes to > > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > > > reality. > > > > > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is > > > extremely > > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > > > countries and > > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > > > these > > > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > > > culture where > > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > > methodology. > > > > > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored > > > as well > > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > > > supply and > > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to > > > maintain a > > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > > > should also > > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > > > capacity to sustain > > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > > > should also > > > > include the following:- > > > > > > > > · Outreach. > > > > > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly > > > before the > > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > > > Moderators whilst > > > > noting the limitations. > > > > > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society > > > and governments > > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG > > > and national, > > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > > guidelines and > > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 > > > participants > > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Dear Sala, > > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just > > > catching up > > > >> with reading the messages. > > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > > > although from > > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > > > during the > > > >> discussions today? > > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > > > >> De > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Dear Deirdre, > > > >>> > > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > > > society component > > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > > > >>> > > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be > > > super > > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We > > > will also be > > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > > >>> > > > >>> Kind Regards, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > >>> > > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > > > Sir William > > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Feb 24 19:18:22 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:18:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> Message-ID: It seems to me the either we're gender imbalanced or this is a female problem. Do none of the male members of this group ever have remote participation difficulties, or, and better, hold RP dear to their hearts? Deirdre On 24 February 2012 19:36, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. > > I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think I > do. > I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near > total failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. > > Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical sense > unless the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other > participants actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not > think I have ever seen in a case where everyone was making allowance. > > The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and they > really had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. > > avri > > > > > On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. > > What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an > intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that > 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just > stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote > access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. > > And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. > Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're > only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we > believe in it we can really make it happen. > > Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. > > Deirdre > > > > On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not > > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have > > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based > > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered > > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that > > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. > > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). > > > > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF > > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having > > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible > > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the > > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, > > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a > > response. > > > > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been > > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched > > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one > > incident. > > > > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to > > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for > > people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically > > present. > > > > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The > > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that > > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to > > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is > > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be > > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors > > physically present at meetings. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > > > > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to > > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who > happen > > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society > > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > > > > > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and > human > > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the > fact > > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike > > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough > money > > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did > > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > > > > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as > > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly > > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. > > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we > > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process > > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big > push. > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque > > > wrote: > > > > > > Adam said: > > > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all > the > > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > people > > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > about > > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > > > important and exciting. > > > > > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an > example > > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details > draws > > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I > know > > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > > > > > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > > > > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the > > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean > > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation > > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have > > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and > > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had > > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' > to > > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation > > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. > > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, > seeking > > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of > volunteers. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for > volunteers. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > > > situations. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the > > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become > > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote > > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional > IGFs. > > > > > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that > > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as > > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > > > > > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which > has > > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and > > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in > > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. > We > > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly > > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different > > > approach, with points I have made above. > > > > > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not > > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made > > > previously, so I have not done so. > > > > > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > > > participation! > > > > > > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > Diplo Foundation > > > > > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to > the > > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting > in > > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and > > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake > > > wrote: > > > > > > Comment below: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making > > > it much easier > > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from > Schombe, > > > Jovan, > > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > > > place it on the > > > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON > > > REMOTE > > > > PARTICIPATION > > > > > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > > > Internet Governance > > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over > > > the last five > > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work > > > behind the > > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We > > > have seen how > > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand > with > > > extraordinary > > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment > > > that enables the > > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, > collaboration and > > > > ultimately access. > > > > > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > > > Secretariat and UN DESA > > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > > > Participation. > > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training > > > of remote > > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they > discuss > > > with remote > > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > > > Secretariat to make > > > > remote participation a reality. > > > > > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > > > participation is a > > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF) > > > and we > > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for > the Open > > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > > > meetings, and the > > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > > > observers. > > > > > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > > > integral part > > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > > > impossible to sustain > > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > > > participation. > > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working > together > > > to address > > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have > > > yet to be > > > > addressed[1]. > > > > > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > > > host to ensure > > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > > > and not just > > > > the Main Sessions. > > > > > > > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > > > > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided > from > > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all > workshop > > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real > time > > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings > were > > > made available through the IGF Website." > > > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with > the > > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen > all the > > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > > > people > > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > > > about > > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > > > team from > > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > > which was > > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > > Society Coordinator > > > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > > > occurred with the > > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning > > > session, (the > > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were > > > effectively > > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty > > > in contacting > > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > > > than one > > > > function. > > > > > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to > > > consider the > > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > > > itself, and work > > > > together to bring them about: > > > > > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > > > participants > > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > > > participants an equal > > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and > appropriate > > > bandwidth to > > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in > > > advance to > > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > > > participation and > > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > > > meeting hosts, > > > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of > all > > > meetings, > > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to > > > engage through > > > > RP that will be available. > > > > > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > > coordinator/moderators (who > > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible > for > > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > > > participants/current speaker, > > > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage > remote > > > participants > > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > > > physically present > > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving > remote > > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > > > channel, as well as > > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of > > > the meeting > > > > > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > > > interactive > > > > presentations access through RP. > > > > > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created > that has > > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > > > Society that > > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > > > Participation and to ensure > > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > > > highlighted to ensure > > > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > > > -face participation, > > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from > all > > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > > > meetings, and who wish > > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a > > > central role in > > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes > remote > > > > participation. > > > > > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments > > > and private > > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > > > tangible outcomes to > > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > > > reality. > > > > > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is > > > extremely > > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > > > countries and > > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any > of > > > these > > > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > > > culture where > > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > > methodology. > > > > > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored > > > as well > > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > > > supply and > > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to > > > maintain a > > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > > > should also > > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > > > capacity to sustain > > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > > > should also > > > > include the following:- > > > > > > > > · Outreach. > > > > > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground > significantly > > > before the > > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > > > Moderators whilst > > > > noting the limitations. > > > > > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society > > > and governments > > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF > RPWG > > > and national, > > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > > guidelines and > > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 > > > participants > > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Dear Sala, > > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just > > > catching up > > > >> with reading the messages. > > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > > > although from > > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > > > during the > > > >> discussions today? > > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > > > >> De > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Dear Deirdre, > > > >>> > > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > > > society component > > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > > > >>> > > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would > be > > > super > > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We > > > will also be > > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > > >>> > > > >>> Kind Regards, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > >>> > > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but > knowledge" > > > Sir William > > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Feb 24 19:19:40 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:19:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> Message-ID: Perhaps we need a statement that communicates 2 diffrent points of view? Compromise is not always possible. Deirdre On 24 February 2012 19:51, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks everyone how do you all propose to reach a compromise between what > Adam raised and others are raising. Please make suggestions to drafting > language in the Statement Workspace, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 > > > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. >> >> I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think I >> do. >> I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near >> total failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. >> >> Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical sense >> unless the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other >> participants actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not >> think I have ever seen in a case where everyone was making allowance. >> >> The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and they >> really had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> > I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. >> > What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an >> intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that >> 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just >> stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote >> access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. >> > And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. >> Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're >> only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we >> believe in it we can really make it happen. >> > Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. >> > Deirdre >> > >> > On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >> > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not >> > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have >> > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based >> > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered >> > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that >> > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. >> > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). >> > >> > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF >> > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having >> > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible >> > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the >> > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, >> > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a >> > response. >> > >> > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been >> > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched >> > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one >> > incident. >> > >> > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to >> > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for >> > people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically >> > present. >> > >> > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The >> > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that >> > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to >> > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is >> > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be >> > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors >> > physically present at meetings. >> > >> > Anriette >> > >> > >> > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. >> > > >> > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to >> > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote >> > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who >> happen >> > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be >> > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil >> society >> > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive >> > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. >> > > >> > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power >> > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and >> human >> > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio >> > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the >> fact >> > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike >> > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough >> money >> > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that >> some >> > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, >> did >> > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. >> > > >> > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as >> > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could >> possibly >> > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of >> wishes. >> > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the >> > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we >> > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process >> > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big >> push. >> > > >> > > Marília >> > > >> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque > > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > Adam said: >> > > >> > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >> > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all >> the >> > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of >> people >> > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more >> about >> > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >> > > >> > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very >> > > important and exciting. >> > > >> > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an >> example >> > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech >> > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be >> > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details >> draws >> > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I >> know >> > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: >> > > >> > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. >> > > >> > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the >> > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I >> mean >> > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation >> > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and >> > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have >> > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and >> > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG >> had >> > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' >> to >> > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote >> participation >> > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. >> > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of >> > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, >> seeking >> > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should >> > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of >> volunteers. >> > > >> > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat >> > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for >> volunteers. >> > > >> > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat >> > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, >> > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc >> > > situations. >> > > >> > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the >> > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would >> become >> > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include >> remote >> > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional >> IGFs. >> > > >> > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that >> > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) >> as >> > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. >> > > >> > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which >> has >> > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and >> > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in >> > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating >> > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. >> We >> > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly >> > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive >> > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing >> > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a >> different >> > > approach, with points I have made above. >> > > >> > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do >> not >> > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made >> > > previously, so I have not done so. >> > > >> > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote >> > > participation! >> > > >> > > Ginger >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> > > >> > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> > > Diplo Foundation >> > > >> > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to >> the >> > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting >> in >> > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and >> > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: >> > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake > > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > Comment below: >> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > Dear All, >> > > > >> > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and >> making >> > > it much easier >> > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from >> Schombe, >> > > Jovan, >> > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. >> > > > >> > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also >> > > place it on the >> > > > Statement Workspace as well: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON >> > > REMOTE >> > > > PARTICIPATION >> > > > >> > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the >> > > Internet Governance >> > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing >> over >> > > the last five >> > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and >> work >> > > behind the >> > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. >> We >> > > have seen how >> > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand >> with >> > > extraordinary >> > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment >> > > that enables the >> > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, >> collaboration and >> > > > ultimately access. >> > > > >> > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum >> > > Secretariat and UN DESA >> > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote >> > > Participation. >> > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with >> training >> > > of remote >> > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they >> discuss >> > > with remote >> > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the >> > > Secretariat to make >> > > > remote participation a reality. >> > > > >> > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote >> > > participation is a >> > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum >> (IGF) >> > > and we >> > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for >> the Open >> > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) >> > > meetings, and the >> > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to >> > > observers. >> > > > >> > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an >> > > integral part >> > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >> > > impossible to sustain >> > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >> > > participation. >> > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working >> together >> > > to address >> > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have >> > > yet to be >> > > > addressed[1]. >> > > > >> > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >> > > host to ensure >> > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions >> > > and not just >> > > > the Main Sessions. >> > > > >> > > >> > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: >> > > >> > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming >> provided from >> > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all >> workshop >> > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real >> time >> > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings >> were >> > > made available through the IGF Website." >> > > >> > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with >> the >> > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen >> all the >> > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of >> > > people >> > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says >> more >> > > about >> > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Adam >> > > >> > > >> > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >> > > team from >> > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >> > > which was >> > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >> > > Society Coordinator >> > > > Vittorio Bertola. >> > > > >> > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >> > > occurred with the >> > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >> morning >> > > session, (the >> > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were >> > > effectively >> > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. >> > > > >> > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had >> difficulty >> > > in contacting >> > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >> > > than one >> > > > function. >> > > > >> > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to >> > > consider the >> > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF >> > > itself, and work >> > > > together to bring them about: >> > > > >> > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >> > > participants >> > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline >> > > participants an equal >> > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >> > > > >> > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and >> appropriate >> > > bandwidth to >> > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in >> > > advance to >> > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. >> > > > >> > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >> > > participation and >> > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for >> > > meeting hosts, >> > > > facilitators and chairs. >> > > > >> > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of >> all >> > > meetings, >> > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to >> > > engage through >> > > > RP that will be available. >> > > > >> > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation >> > > coordinator/moderators (who >> > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are >> responsible for >> > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical >> > > participants/current speaker, >> > > > the Chair and the remote participants). >> > > > >> > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage >> remote >> > > participants >> > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >> > > physically present >> > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> > > > >> > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving >> remote >> > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> > > > >> > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text >> > > channel, as well as >> > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of >> > > the meeting >> > > > >> > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >> > > interactive >> > > > presentations access through RP. >> > > > >> > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created >> that has >> > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and >> Civil >> > > Society that >> > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >> > > Participation and to ensure >> > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been >> > > highlighted to ensure >> > > > improved remote participation processes. >> > > > >> > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to >> > > -face participation, >> > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from >> all >> > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >> > > meetings, and who wish >> > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a >> > > central role in >> > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes >> remote >> > > > participation. >> > > > >> > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the >> governments >> > > and private >> > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. >> > > > >> > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating >> > > tangible outcomes to >> > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a >> > > reality. >> > > > >> > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is >> > > extremely >> > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 >> > > countries and >> > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any >> of >> > > these >> > > > countries could access the IGF. >> > > > >> > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF >> > > culture where >> > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> > > methodology. >> > > > >> > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be >> explored >> > > as well >> > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power >> > > supply and >> > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to >> > > maintain a >> > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats >> > > should also >> > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >> > > capacity to sustain >> > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> > > > >> > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and >> > > should also >> > > > include the following:- >> > > > >> > > > · Outreach. >> > > > >> > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> > > > >> > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground >> significantly >> > > before the >> > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. >> > > > >> > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and >> > > Moderators whilst >> > > > noting the limitations. >> > > > >> > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society >> > > and governments >> > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. >> > > > >> > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF >> RPWG >> > > and national, >> > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. >> > > > >> > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >> > > guidelines and >> > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 >> > > participants >> > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. >> > > > >> > > > Ends >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ________________________________ >> > > > >> > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> Dear Sala, >> > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just >> > > catching up >> > > >> with reading the messages. >> > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >> > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, >> > > although from >> > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded >> > > during the >> > > >> discussions today? >> > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >> > > >> De >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Dear Deirdre, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil >> > > society component >> > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would >> be >> > > super >> > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We >> > > will also be >> > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Kind Regards, >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> -- >> > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> -- >> > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but >> knowledge" >> > > Sir William >> > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > > > >> > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > > >> > > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > > >> > > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > > >> > > > Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > > >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> > > FGV Direito Rio >> > > >> > > Center for Technology and Society >> > > Getulio Vargas Foundation >> > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >> > >> > -- >> > ------------------------------------------------------ >> > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> > executive director, association for progressive communications >> > www.apc.org >> > po box 29755, melville 2109 >> > south africa >> > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 kovenronald at aol.com Fri Feb 24 19:49:40 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:49:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org>! Message-ID: <8CEC16E7DBEB67C-B98-52B0@webmail-m057.sysops.aol.com> If remote paricipation doesn't really work very well (a view with which I concur), then why put so much effort into getting more of it. In my experience, nothing begins to approach face to face interaction. The sooner we face up to the reality that lots of trendy stuff in the digital world should be set aside as bad fashion, the better we'll be able to communicate. Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria To: IGC Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 12:52 am Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation Hi, I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think I do. I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near total failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical sense unless the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other participants actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not think I have ever seen in a case where everyone was making allowance. The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and they really had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. avri On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: > I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. > What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. > And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we believe in it we can really make it happen. > Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. > Deirdre > > On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). > > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a > response. > > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one > incident. > > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for > people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically > present. > > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors > physically present at meetings. > > Anriette > > > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > > > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big push. > > > > Marília > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: > > > > Adam said: > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > > important and exciting. > > > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > > > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > > situations. > > > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. > > > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > > > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different > > approach, with points I have made above. > > > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made > > previously, so I have not done so. > > > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > > participation! > > > > Ginger > > > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Diplo Foundation > > > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > > > > > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake > > wrote: > > > > Comment below: > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making > > it much easier > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, > > Jovan, > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > > place it on the > > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON > > REMOTE > > > PARTICIPATION > > > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > > Internet Governance > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over > > the last five > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work > > behind the > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We > > have seen how > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with > > extraordinary > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment > > that enables the > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and > > > ultimately access. > > > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > > Secretariat and UN DESA > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > > Participation. > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training > > of remote > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss > > with remote > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > > Secretariat to make > > > remote participation a reality. > > > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > > participation is a > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > > and we > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > > meetings, and the > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > > observers. > > > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > > integral part > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > > impossible to sustain > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > > participation. > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together > > to address > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have > > yet to be > > > addressed[1]. > > > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > > host to ensure > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > > and not just > > > the Main Sessions. > > > > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were > > made available through the IGF Website." > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > > people > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > > about > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > > team from > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > which was > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > Society Coordinator > > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > > occurred with the > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning > > session, (the > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were > > effectively > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty > > in contacting > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > > than one > > > function. > > > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to > > consider the > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > > itself, and work > > > together to bring them about: > > > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > > participants > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > > participants an equal > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > > bandwidth to > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in > > advance to > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > > participation and > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > > meeting hosts, > > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > > meetings, > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to > > engage through > > > RP that will be available. > > > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > coordinator/moderators (who > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > > participants/current speaker, > > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > > participants > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > > physically present > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > > channel, as well as > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of > > the meeting > > > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > > interactive > > > presentations access through RP. > > > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > > Society that > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > > Participation and to ensure > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > > highlighted to ensure > > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > > -face participation, > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > > meetings, and who wish > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a > > central role in > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote > > > participation. > > > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments > > and private > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > > tangible outcomes to > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > > reality. > > > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is > > extremely > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > > countries and > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > > these > > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > > culture where > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > methodology. > > > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored > > as well > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > > supply and > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to > > maintain a > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > > should also > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > > capacity to sustain > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > > should also > > > include the following:- > > > > > > · Outreach. > > > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly > > before the > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > > Moderators whilst > > > noting the limitations. > > > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society > > and governments > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG > > and national, > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > guidelines and > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 > > participants > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Dear Sala, > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just > > catching up > > >> with reading the messages. > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > > although from > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > > during the > > >> discussions today? > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > > >> De > > >> > > >> > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Dear Deirdre, > > >>> > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > > society component > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > > >>> > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be > > super > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We > > will also be > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > >>> > > >>> Kind Regards, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >>> > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > > Sir William > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 19:56:19 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:56:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <8CEC16E7DBEB67C-B98-52B0@webmail-m057.sysops.aol.com> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org>! <8CEC16E7DBEB67C-B98-52B0@webmail-m057.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Hi, Partly because we have seen setups that can work. And partly, because there will never be a day when everyone who wants to get to these meetings, will be able to do - with reasons ranging from expense, to timing, to visas, to the need to stay home and take care of family, community or business. avri On 24 Feb 2012, at 19:49, Koven Ronald wrote: > If remote paricipation doesn't really work very well (a view with which I concur), then why put so much effort into getting more of it. In my experience, nothing begins to approach face to face interaction. The sooner we face up to the reality that lots of trendy stuff in the digital world should be set aside as bad fashion, the better we'll be able to communicate. > > Rony Koven > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria > To: IGC > Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 12:52 am > Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation > > Hi, > > I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. > > I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think I do. > I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near total > failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. > > Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical sense unless > the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other participants > actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not think I have ever seen > in a case where everyone was making allowance. > > The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and they really > had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. > > avri > > > > > On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. > > What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an > intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that > 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just > stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote > access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. > > And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. Yes > there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're only just > scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we believe in it we > can really make it happen. > > Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. > > Deirdre > > > > On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen < > anriette at apc.org > > wrote: > > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not > > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have > > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based > > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered > > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that > > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. > > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). > > > > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF > > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having > > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible > > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the > > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, > > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a > > response. > > > > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been > > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched > > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one > > incident. > > > > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to > > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for > > people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically > > present. > > > > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The > > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that > > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to > > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is > > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be > > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors > > physically present at meetings. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > > > > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to > > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen > > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society > > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > > > > > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human > > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact > > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike > > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money > > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did > > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > > > > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as > > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly > > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. > > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we > > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process > > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big push. > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque < > gpaque at gmail.com > > > > < > mailto:gpaque at gmail.com > >> wrote: > > > > > > Adam said: > > > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > > > important and exciting. > > > > > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example > > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws > > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know > > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > > > > > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > > > > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the > > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean > > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation > > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have > > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and > > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had > > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to > > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation > > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. > > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking > > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > > > situations. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the > > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become > > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote > > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. > > > > > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that > > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as > > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > > > > > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has > > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and > > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in > > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We > > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly > > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different > > > approach, with points I have made above. > > > > > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not > > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made > > > previously, so I have not done so. > > > > > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > > > participation! > > > > > > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > Diplo Foundation > > > > > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the > > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in > > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and > > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > > > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake < > ajp at glocom.ac.jp > > > > < > mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp > >> wrote: > > > > > > Comment below: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > > > > < > mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > >> wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making > > > it much easier > > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, > > > Jovan, > > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > > > place it on the > > > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON > > > REMOTE > > > > PARTICIPATION > > > > > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > > > Internet Governance > > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over > > > the last five > > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work > > > behind the > > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We > > > have seen how > > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with > > > extraordinary > > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment > > > that enables the > > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and > > > > ultimately access. > > > > > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > > > Secretariat and UN DESA > > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > > > Participation. > > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training > > > of remote > > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss > > > with remote > > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > > > Secretariat to make > > > > remote participation a reality. > > > > > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > > > participation is a > > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > > > and we > > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > > > meetings, and the > > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > > > observers. > > > > > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > > > integral part > > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > > > impossible to sustain > > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > > > participation. > > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together > > > to address > > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have > > > yet to be > > > > addressed[1]. > > > > > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > > > host to ensure > > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > > > and not just > > > > the Main Sessions. > > > > > > > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > > > > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from > > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop > > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time > > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were > > > made available through the IGF Website." > > > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > > > people > > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > > > about > > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > > > team from > > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > > which was > > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > > Society Coordinator > > > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > > > occurred with the > > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning > > > session, (the > > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were > > > effectively > > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty > > > in contacting > > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > > > than one > > > > function. > > > > > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to > > > consider the > > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > > > itself, and work > > > > together to bring them about: > > > > > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > > > participants > > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > > > participants an equal > > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > > > bandwidth to > > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in > > > advance to > > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > > > participation and > > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > > > meeting hosts, > > > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > > > meetings, > > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to > > > engage through > > > > RP that will be available. > > > > > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > > coordinator/moderators (who > > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for > > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > > > participants/current speaker, > > > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > > > participants > > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > > > physically present > > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > > > channel, as well as > > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of > > > the meeting > > > > > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > > > interactive > > > > presentations access through RP. > > > > > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > > > Society that > > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > > > Participation and to ensure > > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > > > highlighted to ensure > > > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > > > -face participation, > > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > > > meetings, and who wish > > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a > > > central role in > > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote > > > > participation. > > > > > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments > > > and private > > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > > > tangible outcomes to > > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > > > reality. > > > > > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is > > > extremely > > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > > > countries and > > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > > > these > > > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > > > culture where > > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > > methodology. > > > > > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored > > > as well > > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > > > supply and > > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to > > > maintain a > > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > > > should also > > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > > > capacity to sustain > > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > > > should also > > > > include the following:- > > > > > > > > · Outreach. > > > > > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly > > > before the > > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > > > Moderators whilst > > > > noting the limitations. > > > > > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society > > > and governments > > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG > > > and national, > > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > > guidelines and > > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 > > > participants > > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > [1] > http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > > < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com > > > > < > mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Dear Sala, > > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just > > > catching up > > > >> with reading the messages. > > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > > > although from > > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > > > during the > > > >> discussions today? > > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > > > >> De > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >> < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > > > > < > mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Dear Deirdre, > > > >>> > > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > > > society component > > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > > > >>> > > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be > > > super > > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We > > > will also be > > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > > >>> > > > >>> Kind Regards, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > >>> > > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > > > Sir William > > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > < > mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > < > mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen > anriette at apc.org > > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > > www.apc.org > > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 Feb 24 20:10:55 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:10:55 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps we need a statement that communicates 2 diffrent points of view? > Compromise is not always possible. Would you like to Suggest some drafting languahe to that effect? > Deirdre > > > On 24 February 2012 19:51, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thanks everyone how do you all propose to reach a compromise between what >> Adam raised and others are raising. Please make suggestions to drafting >> language in the Statement Workspace, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. >>> >>> I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think I >>> do. >>> I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near >>> total failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. >>> >>> Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical >>> sense unless the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other >>> participants actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not >>> think I have ever seen in a case where everyone was making allowance. >>> >>> The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and they >>> really had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> > I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. >>> > What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an >>> intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that >>> 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just >>> stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote >>> access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. >>> > And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. >>> Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're >>> only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we >>> believe in it we can really make it happen. >>> > Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. >>> > Deirdre >>> > >>> > On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen >>> wrote: >>> > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not >>> > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have >>> > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva >>> based >>> > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered >>> > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that >>> > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. >>> > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). >>> > >>> > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF >>> > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having >>> > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible >>> > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the >>> > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, >>> > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a >>> > response. >>> > >>> > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have >>> been >>> > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched >>> > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one >>> > incident. >>> > >>> > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to >>> > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for >>> > people to participate, and influence processes, without being >>> physically >>> > present. >>> > >>> > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The >>> > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that >>> > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is >>> to >>> > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM >>> is >>> > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be >>> > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors >>> > physically present at meetings. >>> > >>> > Anriette >>> > >>> > >>> > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>> > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. >>> > > >>> > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response >>> to >>> > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote >>> > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who >>> happen >>> > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be >>> > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil >>> society >>> > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive >>> > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. >>> > > >>> > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power >>> > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and >>> human >>> > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio >>> > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the >>> fact >>> > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on >>> strike >>> > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough >>> money >>> > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that >>> some >>> > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, >>> did >>> > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. >>> > > >>> > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as >>> > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could >>> possibly >>> > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of >>> wishes. >>> > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the >>> > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then >>> we >>> > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the >>> process >>> > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a >>> big push. >>> > > >>> > > Marília >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque >> > > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Adam said: >>> > > >>> > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >>> > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all >>> the >>> > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of >>> people >>> > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more >>> about >>> > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >>> > > >>> > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very >>> > > important and exciting. >>> > > >>> > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an >>> example >>> > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech >>> > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be >>> > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details >>> draws >>> > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I >>> know >>> > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: >>> > > >>> > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. >>> > > >>> > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the >>> > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I >>> mean >>> > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote >>> observation >>> > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and >>> > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have >>> > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair >>> and >>> > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG >>> had >>> > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be >>> 'allowed' to >>> > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote >>> participation >>> > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. >>> > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of >>> > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, >>> seeking >>> > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should >>> > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of >>> volunteers. >>> > > >>> > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat >>> > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for >>> volunteers. >>> > > >>> > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat >>> > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, >>> > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc >>> > > situations. >>> > > >>> > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the >>> > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would >>> become >>> > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include >>> remote >>> > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional >>> IGFs. >>> > > >>> > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking >>> that >>> > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) >>> as >>> > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. >>> > > >>> > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which >>> has >>> > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and >>> > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in >>> > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating >>> > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive >>> RP. We >>> > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an >>> orderly >>> > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive >>> > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing >>> > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a >>> different >>> > > approach, with points I have made above. >>> > > >>> > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do >>> not >>> > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made >>> > > previously, so I have not done so. >>> > > >>> > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote >>> > > participation! >>> > > >>> > > Ginger >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> > > >>> > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> > > Diplo Foundation >>> > > >>> > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >>> > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to >>> the >>> > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses >>> starting in >>> > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and >>> > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: >>> > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake >> > > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Comment below: >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. >>> Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> > > >> > > > wrote: >>> > > > Dear All, >>> > > > >>> > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and >>> making >>> > > it much easier >>> > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from >>> Schombe, >>> > > Jovan, >>> > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. >>> > > > >>> > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also >>> > > place it on the >>> > > > Statement Workspace as well: >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS >>> ON >>> > > REMOTE >>> > > > PARTICIPATION >>> > > > >>> > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the >>> > > Internet Governance >>> > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing >>> over >>> > > the last five >>> > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and >>> work >>> > > behind the >>> > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. >>> We >>> > > have seen how >>> > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand >>> with >>> > > extraordinary >>> > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment >>> > > that enables the >>> > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, >>> collaboration and >>> > > > ultimately access. >>> > > > >>> > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum >>> > > Secretariat and UN DESA >>> > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote >>> > > Participation. >>> > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with >>> training >>> > > of remote >>> > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they >>> discuss >>> > > with remote >>> > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the >>> > > Secretariat to make >>> > > > remote participation a reality. >>> > > > >>> > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote >>> > > participation is a >>> > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum >>> (IGF) >>> > > and we >>> > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for >>> the Open >>> > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) >>> > > meetings, and the >>> > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened >>> to >>> > > observers. >>> > > > >>> > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be >>> an >>> > > integral part >>> > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >>> > > impossible to sustain >>> > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >>> > > participation. >>> > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working >>> together >>> > > to address >>> > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have >>> > > yet to be >>> > > > addressed[1]. >>> > > > >>> > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >>> > > host to ensure >>> > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all >>> sessions >>> > > and not just >>> > > > the Main Sessions. >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: >>> > > >>> > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming >>> provided from >>> > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all >>> workshop >>> > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real >>> time >>> > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all >>> meetings were >>> > > made available through the IGF Website." >>> > > >>> > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with >>> the >>> > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen >>> all the >>> > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group >>> of >>> > > people >>> > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says >>> more >>> > > about >>> > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >>> > > >>> > > Thanks, >>> > > >>> > > Adam >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the >>> technical >>> > > team from >>> > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of >>> Turin) >>> > > which was >>> > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >>> > > Society Coordinator >>> > > > Vittorio Bertola. >>> > > > >>> > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >>> > > occurred with the >>> > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, >>> morning >>> > > session, (the >>> > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were >>> > > effectively >>> > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. >>> > > > >>> > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had >>> difficulty >>> > > in contacting >>> > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >>> > > than one >>> > > > function. >>> > > > >>> > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to >>> > > consider the >>> > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF >>> > > itself, and work >>> > > > together to bring them about: >>> > > > >>> > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >>> > > participants >>> > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline >>> > > participants an equal >>> > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >>> > > > >>> > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and >>> appropriate >>> > > bandwidth to >>> > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in >>> > > advance to >>> > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. >>> > > > >>> > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >>> > > participation and >>> > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for >>> > > meeting hosts, >>> > > > facilitators and chairs. >>> > > > >>> > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of >>> all >>> > > meetings, >>> > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities >>> to >>> > > engage through >>> > > > RP that will be available. >>> > > > >>> > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation >>> > > coordinator/moderators (who >>> > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are >>> responsible for >>> > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical >>> > > participants/current speaker, >>> > > > the Chair and the remote participants). >>> > > > >>> > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage >>> remote >>> > > participants >>> > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >>> > > physically present >>> > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >>> > > > >>> > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving >>> remote >>> > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>> > > > >>> > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text >>> > > channel, as well as >>> > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage >>> of >>> > > the meeting >>> > > > >>> > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >>> > > interactive >>> > > > presentations access through RP. >>> > > > >>> > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created >>> that has >>> > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and >>> Civil >>> > > Society that >>> > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >>> > > Participation and to ensure >>> > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been >>> > > highlighted to ensure >>> > > > improved remote participation processes. >>> > > > >>> > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to >>> > > -face participation, >>> > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from >>> all >>> > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >>> > > meetings, and who wish >>> > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a >>> > > central role in >>> > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes >>> remote >>> > > > participation. >>> > > > >>> > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the >>> governments >>> > > and private >>> > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. >>> > > > >>> > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating >>> > > tangible outcomes to >>> > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation >>> a >>> > > reality. >>> > > > >>> > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is >>> > > extremely >>> > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 >>> > > countries and >>> > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that >>> any of >>> > > these >>> > > > countries could access the IGF. >>> > > > >>> > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an >>> IGF >>> > > culture where >>> > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring >>> tested >>> > > methodology. >>> > > > >>> > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be >>> explored >>> > > as well >>> > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power >>> > > supply and >>> > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to >>> > > maintain a >>> > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats >>> > > should also >>> > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >>> > > capacity to sustain >>> > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>> > > > >>> > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and >>> > > should also >>> > > > include the following:- >>> > > > >>> > > > · Outreach. >>> > > > >>> > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>> > > > >>> > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground >>> significantly >>> > > before the >>> > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. >>> > > > >>> > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and >>> > > Moderators whilst >>> > > > noting the limitations. >>> > > > >>> > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society >>> > > and governments >>> > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. >>> > > > >>> > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF >>> RPWG >>> > > and national, >>> > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. >>> > > > >>> > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >>> > > guidelines and >>> > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 >>> > > participants >>> > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. >>> > > > >>> > > > Ends >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > ________________________________ >>> > > > >>> > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams >>> > > > >> > > > wrote: >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Dear Sala, >>> > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am >>> just >>> > > catching up >>> > > >> with reading the messages. >>> > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >>> > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, >>> > > although from >>> > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded >>> > > during the >>> > > >> discussions today? >>> > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >>> > > >> De >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> > > >> >> > > > wrote: >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> Dear Deirdre, >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil >>> > > society component >>> > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that >>> would be >>> > > super >>> > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We >>> > > will also be >>> > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> Kind Regards, >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> -- >>> > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> -- >>> > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but >>> knowledge" >>> > > Sir William >>> > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> > > > >>> > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > > >>> > > > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > > > >>> > > > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > > > >>> > > > Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > > >>> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > > >>> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > > >>> > > Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >>> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > > >>> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > > >>> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >>> > > FGV Direito Rio >>> > > >>> > > Center for Technology and Society >>> > > Getulio Vargas Foundation >>> > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >>> > >>> > -- >>> > ------------------------------------------------------ >>> > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> > executive director, association for progressive communications >>> > www.apc.org >>> > po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> > south africa >>> > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 21:22:54 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:22:54 +1100 Subject: [governance] Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I congratulate the Nomcom on coming to some very good recommendations and results in extremely difficult circumstances. Those who did participate fully did so with a lot of integrity and concern to do the right thing for IGC. No small amount of effort was involved, and they deserve our thanks. Under a separate heading I am going to respond to the recommendations to improve operations of Nomcoms in the future made by the remaining operative members of the committee. But I don¹t want those comments to distract from appreciation for their efforts. Ian Peter From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:23:57 +1200 To: Cc: Subject: [governance] Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report Dear All, Firstly, allow me to take the time to thank the NomCom for completing the task that was assigned to them. The work of the NomCom is not an easy one.  They faced extraordinary circumstances that made their work challenging. Their cover letter and report is enclosed. I thank all those who took the time to apply and congratulate the Nominees and note the recommendation by the NomCom to support APC's list of candidates. For those that did not make the selection, I hope that you will please try again when it opens up again. Kind Regards, Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Lowenhaupt Date: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:24 AM Subject: Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , "nomcom at lists.igcaucus.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Feb 24 22:04:41 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:04:41 +1100 Subject: [governance] Nomcom recommendations from this year and other considerations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As someone who by circumstance I think has been involved in more IGC nomcoms than anyone else I wanted to respond to the recommendations made by the recent Nomcom, and also to make some further suggestions. As background ­ this years MAG nominations were conducted in extremely difficult circumstances. The period of notice to provide nominations was not only short, but it was over a holiday period when many members may not be available. So it was never going to be easy. It was going to need some very good management to complete on time. Unfortunately this did not occur. The non voting Chair appointed by the co-coordinators, (and it may have been on my recommendation) Jacqui Morris, was not able to complete her duties properly. Her inaction led to the circumstance where some nominations, sent to her as requested in the call for nominations, never reached the committee and therefore were not considered. I believe this may have been due to illness. But whatever the circumstances, I believe Jacqui should have resigned when it became clear she could not devote sufficient energies to completing the task, and a new non voting chair should have been appointed. And, in the absence of action or responses from the non voting chair, the nomcom members should have informed the co coordinators of the problem requesting their assistance to rectify matters. Either of those two actions would have been helpful. And perhaps future procedures and briefings by co cordinators can suggest to Nomcoms to contact the co cordinators if administrative issues arise which suggest they may not be able to complete their tasks within the nominated period. The recommendations by the Nomcom are below with my personal responses In brief, we lean toward changes like the following to assist future NomComs: ·1 Select NomCom members in closer proximity to the activity period. In this instance, 6 months separated the selection and activation, and life's randomness and responsibilities kept some members from participating as they would have liked. IP COMMENTS ­ The difficulty is, that the process of selecting a Nomcom takes about one month ­ impossible if we are required to have a Nomcoms deliberations completed within about a month. The UN is making a reasonable call in expecting stakeholders to respond within 30 days ­ we have to have procedures that allow this. I think this requires us perhaps to have a standing nomcom ready to go ­ with requisite reserves- at any time. My personal preference would be that at the beginning of each calendar year we select a Nomcom for that calendar year, and that as their first task they renew the Appeals Team ­ an annual task. They can then be on standby for anything else that comes up. ·1 In addition to the randomly selected members, include two experienced non-voting Co Chairs or Coordinators who would be responsible for guiding and ensuring the process is integral and all communications reach NomCom team members. Having two chairs will preclude instances where the experienced non-voting member becomes unavailable. IP COMMENTS ­ I think one non voting chair is more than enough, but that the non voting chair needs to have a clear working process with the co coordinators. This could include submitting a timetable to the co coordinators for actions, plus progress reports on deadlines met as the process proceeds. Some active management of the process at this distance ­ without being involved or privy to selection issues ­ is I think what co ordinators are elected to do and should do. ·1 Nominations should be distributed to NomCom members at the outset, directly, and not sent initially to co-advisors only. Have an agreed platform for presentation of nominee documents, and for face to face discussion of nominations, for example, via Skype. Procedures should be highlighted, including methodology on how nominations are to be selected and the selection process: by consensus, by vote, or by discussion. IP COMMENTS ­ Agreed. I would add to this that all nominations received should be acknowledged individually, so there can be no doubt that they were in fact received. This can be mentioned in the call for nominations. On the over all procedures, I am unsure of the processes adopted this time, but past nomcoms have adopted processes that did not always involve real time meetings (not all members have reliable connections to allow skype or such face to face discussions). Good processes can be adopted to allow full inputs and comparison of the inputs of various members to arrive at consensual decisions ·1 Duties and responsibilities of Chairs and of members should be made clear at the outset of NomCom selection. In particular the time frame of activation of NomCom should be stated at outset. IP COMMENTS. Agreed. A thorough co cordinator briefing is important to a good outcome. ·1 Establish a quorum of NomCom members required before the final selection is made. And establish a procedure for filling inactive NomCom positions during the review period. This should include an expansion of the reserve pool from 3 to 5 members. IP COMMENTS. Every Nomcom I have been on has had inactive members ­ but we have always had a core of at least 3 active members and have ploughed ahead, leaving it open to inactive members to pick up involvement later on ­ as has sometimes happened. This circumstance seems highly unusual, in that people stated they were available and would participate and then did not. That is difficult to deal with and I am unsure what can be done in that case. Appointing additional members is certainly one option but it¹s not an easy one. That ends the recommendations that have come forward. But in general, I think that current processes can work, but they require a more comprehensive briefing by co ordinators and process management by coordinators as well. And they require selection of trusted and capable non voting chairs if that option is used. But longer term ­ I would suggest those looking at charter review also look at whether the lottery style nomcom or some other procedure might be best suited to our longer term future. I hesitate to comment on that here ­ but will if there is charter review under consideration. But for now, I think we need to look carefully at how we can improve management of processes under our existing charter rather than discuss changes that are more complex and wont solve problems of bad management in any case. 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Feb 24 23:12:39 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:12:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> Message-ID: <1330143159.47811.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dear All, with reference to the comments of "Deirdre Williams" and call from Sala to draft different point of views together. Please find hereunder the required draft.   25 Feb 2012 Draft An Article on Remote Participation Many of the individuals, working groups (like RPWG) and public and private organizations has worked a lot in advocating the requirements and functionalities development of the right means and utilities to eliminate the face to face meeting by facilitating them through different applications, whereas the focal point of the meeting participants may obtain the presence of the remote participants and/or the individuals or groups may get connected with the face to face meeting participants without missing the meeting while they are not physically present in the meeting. Although it is beneficial for both ends but we can’t eliminate the fundamental requirements of the needs and arrangements of “Face-to-Face” as well as “Remote” Meetings. There are different scenarios in day to day life where everyone has a lot of responsibilities, problem, engagements like minimum required arrangements for local or foreign visit includes Passport/Visa, Leaving Station, Office/Home/ Family, Funds, Travelling and Hotel accommodation to attend the Face-to-Face meetings. However, Participation to a Remote-Meeting also have justifiable problem to get connected remotely, to be attentive and to obtaining (getting) the attention of all the participants all the time. He/She have to face the problems of his side which includes client-side deice/computer, electricity, lights, Internet Connectivity, two-way Audio/Video/Text Streaming, interruptions of people and environment voices around him/her. And even if he is always remain connected to the meeting remotely, both-end live interactivity is also required for your voices to be heard to all other participants. In our cases, yes we need the Interaction of Remote Moderator, Chair and other staff and participants to deliver the concern, point of view or ideas and comments to be heard at focal meeting point. Moderator has to pass on the concerns of the Remote Participants like a translator, remote participants either may be away from his desk when his point of view was communicated by the moderator and when the Chair or F2F participants needs reply or provide a chance to speak live/online. The remote participant may skip a repeated call for him because he was not attentive at that moment, now he has missed the chance and the main purpose of his remote participation. It is real world because we have to care for both North and South poles, and we can’t expect ideal situation everywhere and for everyone. We have slogan of One World, One Internet and Everyone Connected, but in fact we can’t assume to expect or provide guaranteed same quality of service for everyone and everywhere round the globe. Most economical is remote participation and maximum beneficial is Face-to-Face Meeting. Neither the requirements of Face-to-Face meetings can be eliminated nor the remote participations. We need a balance between the both types of participations. What we can try to ensure that the Focal Meeting Point should facilitate the multiple nodes, utilities and broadband Internet connections to facility Remote Participation. It is also proposed that the remote participants would be provided interaction in the meetings or workshops with a two way interaction. For example face-to-face meeting participants are given chance to speak from the Chair one by one according to the sitting arrangements and face-plate, in order to complete the discussion round the remote participants should also be asked to give their comments as the F2F participants were asked. And like a F2F meeting participants give the arguments or reply to one another, the remote participants would also be able to communicate with all other participants beyond the text chat only. Remote Participation should be live, interactive and two way, not only for the participants who join the meeting remotely, but also for the participants who are present in the meeting and interacting live with each / any of the remote participant. (for instance the functionality and basic theme of the tele-presence of Video Conferencing service may be explored). Face-to-Face meeting are very difficult for the participants from Developing Economies, LDC or LLC so, they could get maximum benefit out of this RP but their Face-to-Face meeting participation opportunities (like travel funding support) should not be reduced only by the reason of the availability to participate remotely. Local & National Hubs for remote participation may also be expanded like last year we arranged three different hubs in two major cities of our country (PK). --------------------------------------- Different Contributions, comments and reviews of members may be copied in this portion and above text may also be modified according to the comments and references of the contributors. --------------------------------------- Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmad Shah [for IGFPAK] >________________________________ > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >To: Deirdre Williams >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2012, 6:10 >Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation >   >On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >Perhaps we need a statement that communicates 2 diffrent points of view? Compromise is not always possible. > >Would you like to Suggest some drafting languahe to that effect? > >Deirdre >> >> >>On 24 February 2012 19:51, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>Thanks everyone how do you all propose to reach a compromise between what Adam raised and others are raising. Please make suggestions to drafting language in the Statement Workspace, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 >>> >>> >>>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>Hi, >>>> >>>>I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. >>>> >>>>I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think I do. >>>>I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near total failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. >>>> >>>>Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical sense unless the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other participants actually make a concerted allowance for it.  And I do not think I have ever seen in a case where everyone was making allowance. >>>> >>>>The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and they really had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. >>>> >>>>avri >>>> >>>> >>>>On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> >>>>> I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. >>>>> What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. >>>>> And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we believe in it we can really make it happen. >>>>> Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. >>>>> Deirdre >>>>> >>>>> On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>>> Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not >>>>> work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have >>>>> had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based >>>>> meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered >>>>> with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that >>>>> other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. >>>>> places with much faster internet than what I have access to). >>>>> >>>>> As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF >>>>> secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having >>>>> in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible >>>>> was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the >>>>> screen.  I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, >>>>> with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a >>>>> response. >>>>> >>>>> But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been >>>>> made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched >>>>> and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one >>>>> incident. >>>>> >>>>> I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to >>>>> be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for >>>>> people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically >>>>> present. >>>>> >>>>> RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The >>>>> fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that >>>>> still have  a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to >>>>> be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is >>>>> seen primarily as a way to 'save  money and look good' it will not be >>>>> effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors >>>>> physically present at meetings. >>>>> >>>>> Anriette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: >>>>> > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. >>>>> > >>>>> > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to >>>>> > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote >>>>> > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen >>>>> > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be >>>>> > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society >>>>> > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive >>>>> > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. >>>>> > >>>>> > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power >>>>> > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human >>>>> > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio >>>>> > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact >>>>> > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike >>>>> > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money >>>>> > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some >>>>> > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did >>>>> > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. >>>>> > >>>>> > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as >>>>> > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly >>>>> > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. >>>>> > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the >>>>> > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we >>>>> > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process >>>>> > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big push. >>>>> > >>>>> > Marília >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque >>>> > > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >     Adam said: >>>>> > >>>>> >     I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >>>>> >     transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >>>>> >     time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >>>>> >     they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >>>>> >     them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >>>>> > >>>>> >     I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very >>>>> >     important and exciting. >>>>> > >>>>> >     I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example >>>>> >     and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech >>>>> >     glitches during last week's meetings should not even be >>>>> >     addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws >>>>> >     attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know >>>>> >     I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: >>>>> > >>>>> >     RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. >>>>> > >>>>> >     The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the >>>>> >     lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean >>>>> >     remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation >>>>> >     -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and >>>>> >     processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have >>>>> >     been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and >>>>> >     moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had >>>>> >     been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to >>>>> >     act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation >>>>> >     should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. >>>>> >     Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of >>>>> >     volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking >>>>> >     the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should >>>>> >     originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. >>>>> > >>>>> >     If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat >>>>> >     might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. >>>>> > >>>>> >     If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat >>>>> >     might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, >>>>> >     planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc >>>>> >     situations. >>>>> > >>>>> >     If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the >>>>> >     RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become >>>>> >     part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote >>>>> >     hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. >>>>> > >>>>> >     I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that >>>>> >     RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as >>>>> >     an integral part of the IGF meeting process. >>>>> > >>>>> >     Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has >>>>> >     been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and >>>>> >     include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in >>>>> >     response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating >>>>> >     meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We >>>>> >     should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly >>>>> >     manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive >>>>> >     results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing >>>>> >     statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different >>>>> >     approach, with points I have made above. >>>>> > >>>>> >     Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not >>>>> >     have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made >>>>> >     previously, so I have not done so. >>>>> > >>>>> >     Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote >>>>> >     participation! >>>>> > >>>>> >     Ginger >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >     Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>>> > >>>>> >     VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>>>> >     Diplo Foundation >>>>> > >>>>> >     Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >>>>> >     www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>>>> >     /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the >>>>> >     most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in >>>>> >     May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and >>>>> >     *E-diplomacy*.  Apply now to reserve your place: >>>>> >     http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >     On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake >>>> >     > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >         Comment below: >>>>> > >>>>> >         On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> >         >>>> >         > wrote: >>>>> >         > Dear All, >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making >>>>> >         it much easier >>>>> >         > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, >>>>> >         Jovan, >>>>> >         > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also >>>>> >         place it on the >>>>> >         > Statement Workspace as well: >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON >>>>> >         REMOTE >>>>> >         > PARTICIPATION >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the >>>>> >         Internet Governance >>>>> >         > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over >>>>> >         the last five >>>>> >         > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work >>>>> >         behind the >>>>> >         > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today.  We >>>>> >         have seen how >>>>> >         > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with >>>>> >         extraordinary >>>>> >         > levels of sacrifice and commitment.  It is this commitment >>>>> >         that enables the >>>>> >         > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and >>>>> >         > ultimately access. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum >>>>> >         Secretariat and UN DESA >>>>> >         > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote >>>>> >         Participation. >>>>> >         > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training >>>>> >         of remote >>>>> >         > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss >>>>> >         with remote >>>>> >         > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the >>>>> >         Secretariat to make >>>>> >         > remote participation a reality. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote >>>>> >         participation is a >>>>> >         > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) >>>>> >         and we >>>>> >         > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >>>>> >         > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) >>>>> >         meetings, and the >>>>> >         > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to >>>>> >         observers. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an >>>>> >         integral part >>>>> >         > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is >>>>> >         impossible to sustain >>>>> >         > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >>>>> >         participation. >>>>> >         > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together >>>>> >         to address >>>>> >         > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have >>>>> >         yet to be >>>>> >         > addressed[1]. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the >>>>> >         host to ensure >>>>> >         > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions >>>>> >         and not just >>>>> >         > the Main Sessions. >>>>> >         > >>>>> > >>>>> >         from the Nairobi chair's summary document: >>>>> > >>>>> >         "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from >>>>> >         the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop >>>>> >         meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time >>>>> >         transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were >>>>> >         made available through the IGF Website." >>>>> > >>>>> >         I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >>>>> >         transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >>>>> >         time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of >>>>> >         people >>>>> >         they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more >>>>> >         about >>>>> >         them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >>>>> > >>>>> >         Thanks, >>>>> > >>>>> >         Adam >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >         > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical >>>>> >         team from >>>>> >         > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) >>>>> >         which was >>>>> >         > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil >>>>> >         Society Coordinator >>>>> >         > Vittorio Bertola. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that >>>>> >         occurred with the >>>>> >         > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning >>>>> >         session, (the >>>>> >         > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were >>>>> >         effectively >>>>> >         > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         >  Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty >>>>> >         in contacting >>>>> >         > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more >>>>> >         than one >>>>> >         > function. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to >>>>> >         consider the >>>>> >         > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF >>>>> >         itself, and work >>>>> >         > together to bring them about: >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·   Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >>>>> >         participants >>>>> >         > through planning meetings to give online and offline >>>>> >         participants an equal >>>>> >         > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·   Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >>>>> >         bandwidth to >>>>> >         > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in >>>>> >         advance to >>>>> >         > enable greater interactions from offline participants. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·   Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote >>>>> >         participation and >>>>> >         > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for >>>>> >         meeting hosts, >>>>> >         > facilitators and chairs. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·   Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >>>>> >         meetings, >>>>> >         > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to >>>>> >         engage through >>>>> >         > RP that will be available. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation >>>>> >         coordinator/moderators (who >>>>> >         > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for >>>>> >         > interactions between the meeting’s physical >>>>> >         participants/current speaker, >>>>> >         > the Chair and the remote participants). >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·   Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>>>> >         participants >>>>> >         > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those >>>>> >         physically present >>>>> >         > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·   Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>>>> >         > participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·   Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text >>>>> >         channel, as well as >>>>> >         > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of >>>>> >         the meeting >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·   Enabling the meeting and remote participation through >>>>> >         interactive >>>>> >         > presentations access through RP. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·   Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>>>> >         > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil >>>>> >         Society that >>>>> >         > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote >>>>> >         Participation and to ensure >>>>> >         > the incorporation of critical elements that have been >>>>> >         highlighted to ensure >>>>> >         > improved remote participation processes. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > Because only limited funds are available for face- to >>>>> >         -face participation, >>>>> >         > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all >>>>> >         > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the >>>>> >         meetings, and who wish >>>>> >         > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a >>>>> >         central role in >>>>> >         > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote >>>>> >         > participation. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments >>>>> >         and private >>>>> >         > sector in enhancing remote participation. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating >>>>> >         tangible outcomes to >>>>> >         > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a >>>>> >         reality. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > There are regions around the world where transportation is >>>>> >         extremely >>>>> >         > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 >>>>> >         countries and >>>>> >         > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of >>>>> >         these >>>>> >         > countries could access the IGF. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF >>>>> >         culture where >>>>> >         > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>>>> >         methodology. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         >  The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored >>>>> >         as well >>>>> >         > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power >>>>> >         supply and >>>>> >         > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to >>>>> >         maintain a >>>>> >         > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats >>>>> >         should also >>>>> >         > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth >>>>> >         capacity to sustain >>>>> >         > the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and >>>>> >         should also >>>>> >         > include the following:- >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·         Outreach. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·         Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·         Coordinating with people on the ground significantly >>>>> >         before the >>>>> >         > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·         Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and >>>>> >         Moderators whilst >>>>> >         > noting the limitations. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·         Identifying how the private sector, civil society >>>>> >         and governments >>>>> >         > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ·         Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG >>>>> >         and national, >>>>> >         > sub regional and regional IGFs. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published >>>>> >         guidelines and >>>>> >         > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 >>>>> >         participants >>>>> >         > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > Ends >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ________________________________ >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams >>>>> >         > >>>> >         > wrote: >>>>> >         >> >>>>> >         >> Dear Sala, >>>>> >         >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just >>>>> >         catching up >>>>> >         >> with reading the messages. >>>>> >         >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >>>>> >         >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, >>>>> >         although from >>>>> >         >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded >>>>> >         during the >>>>> >         >> discussions today? >>>>> >         >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >>>>> >         >> De >>>>> >         >> >>>>> >         >> >>>>> >         >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> >         >> >>>> >         > wrote: >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >>> Dear Deirdre, >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil >>>>> >         society component >>>>> >         >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be >>>>> >         super >>>>> >         >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We >>>>> >         will also be >>>>> >         >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >>> Kind Regards, >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >>> -- >>>>> >         >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>> >         >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> >         >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >>> >>>>> >         >> >>>>> >         >> >>>>> >         >> >>>>> >         >> -- >>>>> >         >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" >>>>> >         Sir William >>>>> >         >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > -- >>>>> >         > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>> >         > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> >         > Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> >         > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >         >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> >         >>>>> >         > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> >         >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> >         >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> >         > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> >         >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >         > >>>>> >         > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >         > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >         ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> >         You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >             governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> >         >>>>> >         To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> >             http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> > >>>>> >         For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> >             http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> >         To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> >             http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> > >>>>> >         Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >     ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> >     You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> >         governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> >     To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> >         http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> > >>>>> >     For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> >         http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> >     To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> >         http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> > >>>>> >     Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >>>>> > FGV Direito Rio >>>>> > >>>>> > Center for Technology and Society >>>>> > Getulio Vargas Foundation >>>>> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>>> www.apc.org >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>>> south africa >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> >>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>  >>> >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To 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 >> > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >Tweeter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Cell: +679 998 2851 >  > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >      -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 24 23:47:43 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 16:47:43 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <1330143159.47811.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> <1330143159.47811.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Imran, Thank you for this. I am grateful for the work that you have put into this. Sala On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear All, with reference to the comments of "Deirdre Williams" and call > from Sala to draft different point of views together. Please find hereunder > the required draft. > > 25 Feb 2012 > Draft > An Article on Remote Participation****** > Many of the individuals, working groups (like RPWG) and public and > private organizations has worked a lot in advocating the requirements and > functionalities development of the right means and utilities to eliminate > the face to face meeting by facilitating them through different > applications, whereas the focal point of the meeting participants may > obtain the presence of the remote participants and/or the individuals or > groups may get connected with the face to face meeting participants without > missing the meeting while they are not physically present in the meeting. > **** > Although it is beneficial for both ends but we can’t eliminate the > fundamental requirements of the needs and arrangements of “Face-to-Face” as > well as “Remote” Meetings. There are different scenarios in day to day life > where everyone has a lot of responsibilities, problem, engagements like > minimum required arrangements for local or foreign visit includes > Passport/Visa, Leaving Station, Office/Home/ Family, Funds, Travelling and > Hotel accommodation to attend the Face-to-Face meetings. However, > Participation to a Remote-Meeting also have justifiable problem to get > connected remotely, to be attentive and to obtaining (getting) the > attention of all the participants all the time. He/She have to face the > problems of his side which includes client-side deice/computer, > electricity, lights, Internet Connectivity, two-way Audio/Video/Text > Streaming, interruptions of people and environment voices around him/her. > And even if he is always remain connected to the meeting remotely, both-end > live interactivity is also required for your voices to be heard to all > other participants. In our cases, yes we need the Interaction of Remote > Moderator, Chair and other staff and participants to deliver the concern, > point of view or ideas and comments to be heard at focal meeting point. > Moderator has to pass on the concerns of the Remote Participants like a > translator, remote participants either may be away from his desk when his > point of view was communicated by the moderator and when the Chair or F2F > participants needs reply or provide a chance to speak live/online. The > remote participant may skip a repeated call for him because he was not > attentive at that moment, now he has missed the chance and the main purpose > of his remote participation.**** > It is real world because we have to care for both North and South poles, > and we can’t expect ideal situation everywhere and for everyone. We have > slogan of One World, One Internet and Everyone Connected, but in fact we > can’t assume to expect or provide guaranteed same quality of service for > everyone and everywhere round the globe.**** > Most economical is remote participation and maximum beneficial is > Face-to-Face Meeting. Neither the requirements of Face-to-Face meetings can > be eliminated nor the remote participations. We need a balance between the > both types of participations. What we can try to ensure that the Focal > Meeting Point should facilitate the multiple nodes, utilities and broadband > Internet connections to facility Remote Participation. It is also proposed > that the remote participants would be provided interaction in the meetings > or workshops with a two way interaction. For example face-to-face meeting > participants are given chance to speak from the Chair one by one according > to the sitting arrangements and face-plate, in order to complete the > discussion round the remote participants should also be asked to give their > comments as the F2F participants were asked. And like a F2F meeting > participants give the arguments or reply to one another, the remote > participants would also be able to communicate with all other participants > beyond the text chat only. Remote Participation should be live, interactive > and two way, not only for the participants who join the meeting remotely, > but also for the participants who are present in the meeting and > interacting live with each / any of the remote participant. (for instance > the functionality and basic theme of the tele-presence of Video > Conferencing service may be explored).**** > Face-to-Face meeting are very difficult for the participants from > Developing Economies, LDC or LLC so, they could get maximum benefit out of > this RP but their Face-to-Face meeting participation opportunities (like > travel funding support) should not be reduced only by the reason of the > availability to participate remotely. **** > Local & National Hubs for remote participation may also be expanded like > last year we arranged three different hubs in two major cities of our > country (PK).**** > ---------------------------------------**** > Different Contributions, comments and reviews of members may be copied in > this portion and above text may also be modified according to the comments > and references of the contributors.**** > ---------------------------------------**** > Thanking you and Best Regards**** > Imran Ahmad Shah > [for IGFPAK]**** > > >________________________________ > > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > >To: Deirdre Williams > >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >Sent: Saturday, 25 February 2012, 6:10 > > >Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation > > > >On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >Perhaps we need a statement that communicates 2 diffrent points of view? > Compromise is not always possible. > > > >Would you like to Suggest some drafting languahe to that effect? > > > >Deirdre > >> > >> > >>On 24 February 2012 19:51, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>Thanks everyone how do you all propose to reach a compromise between > what Adam raised and others are raising. Please make suggestions to > drafting language in the Statement Workspace, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 > >>> > >>> > >>>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> > >>>Hi, > >>>> > >>>>I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. > >>>> > >>>>I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think > I do. > >>>>I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near > total failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. > >>>> > >>>>Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical > sense unless the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other > participants actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not > think I have ever seen in a case where everyone was making allowance. > >>>> > >>>>The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and > they really had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. > >>>> > >>>>avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. > >>>>> What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than > an intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel > that 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then > just stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting > remote access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. > >>>>> And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really > real'. Yes there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes > we're only just scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if > we believe in it we can really make it happen. > >>>>> Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. > >>>>> Deirdre > >>>>> > >>>>> On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >>>>> Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did > not > >>>>> work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have > >>>>> had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva > based > >>>>> meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered > >>>>> with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that > >>>>> other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. > >>>>> places with much faster internet than what I have access to). > >>>>> > >>>>> As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF > >>>>> secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were > having > >>>>> in the morning. There was no improvement because the person > responsible > >>>>> was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the > >>>>> screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during > lunch, > >>>>> with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there > was a > >>>>> response. > >>>>> > >>>>> But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have > been > >>>>> made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were > stretched > >>>>> and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one > >>>>> incident. > >>>>> > >>>>> I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has > to > >>>>> be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for > >>>>> people to participate, and influence processes, without being > physically > >>>>> present. > >>>>> > >>>>> RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). > The > >>>>> fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that > >>>>> still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM > is to > >>>>> be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as > RM is > >>>>> seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be > >>>>> effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors > >>>>> physically present at meetings. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anriette > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > >>>>> > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > There is only one additional point I would like to make in > response to > >>>>> > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > >>>>> > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who > happen > >>>>> > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > >>>>> > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil > society > >>>>> > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > >>>>> > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple > power > >>>>> > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and > human > >>>>> > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > >>>>> > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by > the fact > >>>>> > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on > strike > >>>>> > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough > money > >>>>> > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that > some > >>>>> > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the > secretariat, did > >>>>> > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, > as > >>>>> > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could > possibly > >>>>> > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of > wishes. > >>>>> > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > >>>>> > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), > then we > >>>>> > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the > process > >>>>> > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a > big push. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Marília > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque >>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Adam said: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with > the > >>>>> > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen > all the > >>>>> > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > people > >>>>> > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says > more about > >>>>> > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > >>>>> > important and exciting. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an > example > >>>>> > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > >>>>> > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > >>>>> > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details > draws > >>>>> > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. > I know > >>>>> > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was > the > >>>>> > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I > mean > >>>>> > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote > observation > >>>>> > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > >>>>> > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would > have > >>>>> > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair > and > >>>>> > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the > RPWG had > >>>>> > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be > 'allowed' to > >>>>> > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote > participation > >>>>> > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and > serendipity. > >>>>> > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > >>>>> > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, > seeking > >>>>> > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > >>>>> > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of > volunteers. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the > Secretariat > >>>>> > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for > volunteers. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the > Secretariat > >>>>> > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > >>>>> > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > >>>>> > situations. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of > the > >>>>> > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would > become > >>>>> > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include > remote > >>>>> > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for > regional IGFs. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking > that > >>>>> > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate > word) as > >>>>> > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process > which has > >>>>> > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, > and > >>>>> > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, > in > >>>>> > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > >>>>> > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive > RP. We > >>>>> > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an > orderly > >>>>> > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > >>>>> > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > >>>>> > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a > different > >>>>> > approach, with points I have made above. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I > do not > >>>>> > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have > made > >>>>> > previously, so I have not done so. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > >>>>> > participation! > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Ginger > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > >>>>> > > >>>>> > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > >>>>> > Diplo Foundation > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > >>>>> > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > >>>>> > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy > to the > >>>>> > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses > starting in > >>>>> > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, > and > >>>>> > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > >>>>> > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake >>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Comment below: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>>> > >>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>> > > Dear All, > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and > making > >>>>> > it much easier > >>>>> > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from > Schombe, > >>>>> > Jovan, > >>>>> > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > >>>>> > place it on the > >>>>> > > Statement Workspace as well: > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE > CAUCUS ON > >>>>> > REMOTE > >>>>> > > PARTICIPATION > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > >>>>> > Internet Governance > >>>>> > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing > over > >>>>> > the last five > >>>>> > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and > work > >>>>> > behind the > >>>>> > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is > today. We > >>>>> > have seen how > >>>>> > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in > hand with > >>>>> > extraordinary > >>>>> > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this > commitment > >>>>> > that enables the > >>>>> > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, > collaboration and > >>>>> > > ultimately access. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > >>>>> > Secretariat and UN DESA > >>>>> > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to > Remote > >>>>> > Participation. > >>>>> > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with > training > >>>>> > of remote > >>>>> > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they > discuss > >>>>> > with remote > >>>>> > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > >>>>> > Secretariat to make > >>>>> > > remote participation a reality. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > >>>>> > participation is a > >>>>> > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum > (IGF) > >>>>> > and we > >>>>> > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation > for the Open > >>>>> > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > >>>>> > meetings, and the > >>>>> > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was > opened to > >>>>> > observers. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should > be an > >>>>> > integral part > >>>>> > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > >>>>> > impossible to sustain > >>>>> > > an inclusive global policy process without effective > remote > >>>>> > participation. > >>>>> > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working > together > >>>>> > to address > >>>>> > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that > have > >>>>> > yet to be > >>>>> > > addressed[1]. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with > the > >>>>> > host to ensure > >>>>> > > that real time transcriptions are available for all > sessions > >>>>> > and not just > >>>>> > > the Main Sessions. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming > provided from > >>>>> > the main session room and audio streaming provided from > all workshop > >>>>> > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had > real time > >>>>> > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all > meetings were > >>>>> > made available through the IGF Website." > >>>>> > > >>>>> > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems > with the > >>>>> > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections > happen all the > >>>>> > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a > group of > >>>>> > people > >>>>> > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says > more > >>>>> > about > >>>>> > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Thanks, > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Adam > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the > technical > >>>>> > team from > >>>>> > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of > Turin) > >>>>> > which was > >>>>> > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > >>>>> > Society Coordinator > >>>>> > > Vittorio Bertola. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties > that > >>>>> > occurred with the > >>>>> > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, > morning > >>>>> > session, (the > >>>>> > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers > were > >>>>> > effectively > >>>>> > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had > difficulty > >>>>> > in contacting > >>>>> > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving > more > >>>>> > than one > >>>>> > > function. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves > to > >>>>> > consider the > >>>>> > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > >>>>> > itself, and work > >>>>> > > together to bring them about: > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and > offline > >>>>> > participants > >>>>> > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > >>>>> > participants an equal > >>>>> > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and > appropriate > >>>>> > bandwidth to > >>>>> > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well > in > >>>>> > advance to > >>>>> > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > >>>>> > participation and > >>>>> > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > >>>>> > meeting hosts, > >>>>> > > facilitators and chairs. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance > of all > >>>>> > meetings, > >>>>> > > with clear guidance for participants on the > opportunities to > >>>>> > engage through > >>>>> > > RP that will be available. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > >>>>> > coordinator/moderators (who > >>>>> > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are > responsible for > >>>>> > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > >>>>> > participants/current speaker, > >>>>> > > the Chair and the remote participants). > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage > remote > >>>>> > participants > >>>>> > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > >>>>> > physically present > >>>>> > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by > giving remote > >>>>> > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > >>>>> > channel, as well as > >>>>> > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of > coverage of > >>>>> > the meeting > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > >>>>> > interactive > >>>>> > > presentations access through RP. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group > created that has > >>>>> > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and > Civil > >>>>> > Society that > >>>>> > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > >>>>> > Participation and to ensure > >>>>> > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > >>>>> > highlighted to ensure > >>>>> > > improved remote participation processes. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > >>>>> > -face participation, > >>>>> > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders > from all > >>>>> > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > >>>>> > meetings, and who wish > >>>>> > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also > play a > >>>>> > central role in > >>>>> > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that > welcomes remote > >>>>> > > participation. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > We also encourage greater partnership between the > governments > >>>>> > and private > >>>>> > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > >>>>> > tangible outcomes to > >>>>> > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote > participation a > >>>>> > reality. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > There are regions around the world where transportation > is > >>>>> > extremely > >>>>> > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > >>>>> > countries and > >>>>> > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that > any of > >>>>> > these > >>>>> > > countries could access the IGF. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > However there is room to improve processes and create an > IGF > >>>>> > culture where > >>>>> > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring > tested > >>>>> > methodology. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be > explored > >>>>> > as well > >>>>> > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > >>>>> > supply and > >>>>> > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical > to > >>>>> > maintain a > >>>>> > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF > Secretariats > >>>>> > should also > >>>>> > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > >>>>> > capacity to sustain > >>>>> > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > >>>>> > should also > >>>>> > > include the following:- > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Outreach. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Coordinating with people on the ground > significantly > >>>>> > before the > >>>>> > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > >>>>> > Moderators whilst > >>>>> > > noting the limitations. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil > society > >>>>> > and governments > >>>>> > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the > IGF RPWG > >>>>> > and national, > >>>>> > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which > published > >>>>> > guidelines and > >>>>> > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 > WS-67 > >>>>> > participants > >>>>> > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > Ends > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > ________________________________ > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > [1] > http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> Dear Sala, > >>>>> > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am > just > >>>>> > catching up > >>>>> > >> with reading the messages. > >>>>> > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > >>>>> > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > >>>>> > although from > >>>>> > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > >>>>> > during the > >>>>> > >> discussions today? > >>>>> > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > >>>>> > >> De > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>>> > >> >>>>> > > wrote: > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> Dear Deirdre, > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > >>>>> > society component > >>>>> > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that > would be > >>>>> > super > >>>>> > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. > We > >>>>> > will also be > >>>>> > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> Kind Regards, > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> -- > >>>>> > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>>>> > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>>> > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> -- > >>>>> > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but > knowledge" > >>>>> > Sir William > >>>>> > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > -- > >>>>> > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>>>> > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>>> > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>> > > >>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > > >>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > >>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > > >>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > -- > >>>>> > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > >>>>> > FGV Direito Rio > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Center for Technology and Society > >>>>> > Getulio Vargas Foundation > >>>>> > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > >>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications > >>>>> www.apc.org > >>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 > >>>>> south africa > >>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>> To 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>-- > >>> > >>>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> > >>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>____________________________________________________________ > >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>>For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>To 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 > >> > > > > > >-- > > > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > >Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 25 00:36:55 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:36:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Marilia, you're right. Without the pressure and advice of remote participation group we would not have seen the good level of progress. The statement's important. Has the remote participation group submitted a report on the Nairobi meeting? I only work for the secretariat for the IGF itself, and get stuck in main sessions so have a limited view of what's going on, but am surprised by how bad things seem to have been. I know remote participation is a high priority for the secretariat, formally in agreements with the host and with funds raised to pay for the services, and is something Chengetai cares about personally. Nairobi seems to have been something of a mess, hope it's been documented. Adam On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to Adam, > when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen to > be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be inclined to > see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society is expected to > present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive analysis of the process, > including of remote participation. > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike on > the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money to > cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did not > bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as you > pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly want > more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. And if > the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the increasing > interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we should make a > collective effort to take the opportunity of the process of discussing the > implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big push. > > Marília > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Adam said: >> >> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >> >> I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and >> exciting. >> >> I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and >> illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during >> last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. >> Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and >> more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they >> boil down to just one: >> >> RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. >> >> The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of a >> remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote >> participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an >> automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion >> of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the >> presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one >> of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have >> 'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation >> and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers >> and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of >> volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the >> privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in the >> IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. >> >> If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might ask >> the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. >> >> If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might >> include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and >> process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations. >> >> If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG >> catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the >> IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever >> appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. >> >> I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be >> institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral >> part of the IGF meeting process. >> >> Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been >> started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the >> different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one >> frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress >> the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to energize >> forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better strategy and >> focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made comments on the >> existing statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different >> approach, with points I have made above. >> >> Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have >> the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so I >> have not done so. >> >> Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote >> participation! >> >> Ginger >> >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> Diplo Foundation >> >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> The latest from Diplo....From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most >> exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May >> 2012: Bilateral Diplomacy, Diplomacy of Small States, and E-diplomacy. >> Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses >> >> >> >> On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Comment below: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> > Dear All, >>> > >>> > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much >>> > easier >>> > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, >>> > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. >>> > >>> > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on >>> > the >>> > Statement Workspace as well: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE >>> > PARTICIPATION >>> > >>> > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet >>> > Governance >>> > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last >>> > five >>> > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind >>> > the >>> > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today.  We have seen >>> > how >>> > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with >>> > extraordinary >>> > levels of sacrifice and commitment.  It is this commitment that enables >>> > the >>> > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and >>> > ultimately access. >>> > >>> > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN >>> > DESA >>> > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote >>> > Participation. >>> > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote >>> > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with >>> > remote >>> > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to >>> > make >>> > remote participation a reality. >>> > >>> > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is >>> > a >>> > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >>> > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >>> > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and >>> > the >>> > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >>> > >>> > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >>> > part >>> > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to >>> > sustain >>> > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >>> > participation. >>> > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to >>> > address >>> > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be >>> > addressed[1]. >>> > >>> > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >>> > ensure >>> > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not >>> > just >>> > the Main Sessions. >>> > >>> >>> from the Nairobi chair's summary document: >>> >>> "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from >>> the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop >>> meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time >>> transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were >>> made available through the IGF Website." >>> >>> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >>> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >>> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >>> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >>> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from >>> > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was >>> > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society >>> > Coordinator >>> > Vittorio Bertola. >>> > >>> > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >>> > with the >>> > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, >>> > (the >>> > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively >>> > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. >>> > >>> >  Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >>> > contacting >>> > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one >>> > function. >>> > >>> > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the >>> > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >>> > work >>> > together to bring them about: >>> > >>> > ·   Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >>> > participants >>> > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >>> > equal >>> > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >>> > >>> > ·   Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >>> > bandwidth to >>> > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to >>> > enable greater interactions from offline participants. >>> > >>> > ·   Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >>> > and >>> > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, >>> > facilitators and chairs. >>> > >>> > ·   Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >>> > meetings, >>> > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >>> > through >>> > RP that will be available. >>> > >>> > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators >>> > (who >>> > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for >>> > interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current >>> > speaker, >>> > the Chair and the remote participants). >>> > >>> > ·   Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>> > participants >>> > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically >>> > present >>> > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >>> > >>> > ·   Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>> > participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>> > >>> > ·   Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >>> > as >>> > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the >>> > meeting >>> > >>> > ·   Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >>> > presentations access through RP. >>> > >>> > ·   Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>> > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >>> > that >>> > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >>> > ensure >>> > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to >>> > ensure >>> > improved remote participation processes. >>> > >>> > Because only limited funds are available for face- to >>> > -face participation, >>> > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all >>> > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who >>> > wish >>> > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central >>> > role in >>> > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote >>> > participation. >>> > >>> > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >>> > private >>> > sector in enhancing remote participation. >>> > >>> > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >>> > outcomes to >>> > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. >>> > >>> > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >>> > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >>> > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >>> > countries could access the IGF. >>> > >>> > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >>> > where >>> > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>> > methodology. >>> > >>> >  The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >>> > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >>> > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a >>> > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >>> > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >>> > sustain >>> > the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>> > >>> > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also >>> > include the following:- >>> > >>> > ·         Outreach. >>> > >>> > ·         Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>> > >>> > ·         Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before >>> > the >>> > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. >>> > >>> > ·         Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators >>> > whilst >>> > noting the limitations. >>> > >>> > ·         Identifying how the private sector, civil society and >>> > governments >>> > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. >>> > >>> > ·         Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and >>> > national, >>> > sub regional and regional IGFs. >>> > >>> > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines >>> > and >>> > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 >>> > participants >>> > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. >>> > >>> > Ends >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ________________________________ >>> > >>> > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Dear Sala, >>> >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching >>> >> up >>> >> with reading the messages. >>> >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >>> >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from >>> >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the >>> >> discussions today? >>> >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >>> >> De >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Deirdre, >>> >>> >>> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society >>> >>> component >>> >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >>> >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also >>> >>> be >>> >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> >> William >>> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> > >>> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> > Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Sat Feb 25 02:30:58 2012 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:30:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Sala, Dear all, We strongly believe that the issues of the participation of vulnerable people in the Information Society and their voice should be raised and we propose to include this under "Access and Diversity". Kind regards, Yuliya TaC-Together against Cybercrime Le 23/2/2012, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" a écrit: >Hi everyone, > >Let me know if you would like to add additional thoughts etc. Volunteers >are still needed to consolidate the themes etc to make it more coherent and >will soon put it back to the list through the Statement Workspace for the >rough consensus call before it is put to the MAG. > >Kind Regards, >Sala > >On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Tim Davies < >> tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Hello Imran and others, >>> >>> I'm also uncomfortable if we frame 'Internet for Kids' as creating some >>> sort of separate tightly filtered Internet. I would see the task of >>> focussing on the Internet for Children much more as a question of ensuring >>> there is positive content available to children in engaging online and >>> making positive choices, rather than adults choosing to control children's >>> and young people's access to information with filtered online spaces. >>> >>> >> Excellent point Tim. I like this approach. >> >> Perhaps if I could invite volunteers to work on consolidating the >> comments and themes that have surfaced so we can get some level of >> consensus. This is so we can prepare to send our thoughts. We will then put >> it to the list for a consensus call. >> >> I think a language of Children's Rights is useful here, and the ideas >>> Imran suggest below, might fit into the proposal I put in the Human Rights >>> thread for reframing 'Child Protection' as a 'Children's Rights' thread. >>> Below is what I said in that thread about the value in taking a Children's >>> Rights approach to these issues: >>> >>> "On the suggestion for (11) on 'Online child protection', I would really >>> like to see this framed as 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision and >>> Participation', rather than solely 'child protection', particularly as this >>> is falling under a 'human rights' heading. >>> >>> I've written a bit on the justification for this at >>> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23226/ - but essentially, when we adopt >>> narrow narratives of 'online child protection' we end up (a) neglecting >>> children and young people's broader set of rights to be active >>> participants on the web, and to safe and supportive online provision; and >>> (b) we adopt counter-productive strategies which don't even serve the >>> intended goals of keeping young people safe from harm online. " >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Fatima Cambronero < >>> fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2012/2/21 McTim >>>> >>>>> On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >>>>> > Thanks Sala for your comments, >>>>> > This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were >>>>> discussing >>>>> > that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing, >>>>> > configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or >>>>> using >>>>> > the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we >>>>> devise some >>>>> > governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser to >>>>> Kids >>>>> > Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the >>>>> confidence of >>>>> > Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to >>>>> Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate). >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And what about their privacy? Do children have no Right to Privacy? >>>> >>>> From what age do children acquire the right to privacy? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Fatima >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Fatima Cambronero* >>>> Abogada-Argentina >>>> Directora de Investigaciones >>>> *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* >>>> http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ >>>> >>>> *@facambronero* >>>> >>>> *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> http://www.timdavies.org.uk >>> 07834 856 303. >>> @timdavies >>> >>> Co-director of Practical Participation: >>> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >>> -------------------------- >>> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales >>> - #5381958. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >Tweeter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 25 04:59:54 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:59:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <8CEC16E7DBEB67C-B98-52B0@webmail-m057.sysops.aol.com> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> <8CEC16E7DBEB67C-B98-52B0@webmail-m057.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Alpha Hello, I'm not sure I understood the intentions of Rony. But PR is absolutely necessary even if we do not enjoy the same technological advantages as regards broadband. For a country like the DRC with an area of 2,345,000 km², the RP is terribly necessary because the actors inhabit localities to hundreds or thousands of kilometers from the capital. We have created hubs within universities to facilitate RP. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/25 Koven Ronald > If remote paricipation doesn't really work very well (a view with which I > concur), then why put so much effort into getting more of it. In my > experience, nothing begins to approach face to face interaction. The sooner > we face up to the reality that lots of trendy stuff in the digital world > should be set aside as bad fashion, the better we'll be able to communicate. > > Rony Koven > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria > To: IGC > Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 12:52 am > Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation > > Hi, > > I agree with what has been said in this thread by the past few writers. > > I used to not beleive in having a Remote only meeting, but now I think I do. > I tried to participate in meetings remotely and found it to be a near total > failure. I am live in a bandwidth rich zone. > > Plus even when it works technically it does not work in a practical sense unless > the chair, the secretariat, the remote moderator and the other participants > actually make a concerted allowance for it. And I do not think I have ever seen > in a case where everyone was making allowance. > > The best it ever was, was when the RCWG was doing all the work, and they really > had to work hard to make it even resemble particpation. > > avri > > > > > On 24 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > I also support what Ginger and Marilia and Anriette are saying. > > What I could possibly want more is a system that works rather than an > intention on paper. I hope this is not too blunt but sometimes I feel that > 'people' are saying "remote participation is a good thing", and then just > stopping there. An excellent ploy might be to have just one meeting remote > access only - so that everyone knows how the other side lives. > > And I think that we all need to fight for it to make it 'really real'. Yes > there will be breakdowns - electrical and otherwise - and yes we're only just > scratching the surface of the language difficulties, but if we believe in it we > can really make it happen. > > Only we have to believe in it and support it - all of us. > > Deirdre > > > > On 24 February 2012 19:04, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Hi all..at two of the workshops I was involved in in Nairobi RM did not > > work.. either not at all, or partially. IN the last few months I have > > had bad experiences in trying to be a remote participant in Geneva based > > meetings. When my slow connection speed from South Africa interfered > > with my access to the meeting I was blamed for this.. and told that > > other people had no problems (they happened to be in Paris and Rio.. > > places with much faster internet than what I have access to). > > > > As for the MAG meetings last week.. I personally spoke to IGF > > secretariat about the difficulties that remote participants were having > > in the morning. There was no improvement because the person responsible > > was having to take notes that were displayed from his PC onto the > > screen. I raised the concerns on the last day directly, during lunch, > > with the Chair from Azerbaidjan and with the Chair and then there was a > > response. > > > > But, if RM was taken seriously enough then more resoures would have been > > made available. I am not blaming the secretariat.. they were stretched > > and doing the best they can. The problem is deeper than just this one > > incident. > > > > I strongly support Ginger's points, and Marilia's additions. RM has to > > be taken MUCH more seriously if it is going to be a serious way for > > people to participate, and influence processes, without being physically > > present. > > > > RM is beginning to feel like MSP (Multi-stakeholder participation). The > > fact that it 'exists' is used to give credibility to processes that > > still have a very long way to go in being really inclusive. If RM is to > > be taken seriously it needs more focus and more budget. As long as RM is > > seen primarily as a way to 'save money and look good' it will not be > > effective as an alternative to having generally excluded actors > > physically present at meetings. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > On 24/02/12 22:00, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > > I support Ginger's e-mail, so I will not repeat her arguments. > > > > > > There is only one additional point I would like to make in response to > > > Adam, when he quoted what the Chair's report said about remote > > > participation. While it is totally understandable that people who happen > > > to be working for the IGF will come up with positive results and be > > > inclined to see the bright side of things, I believe that civil society > > > is expected to present more meaningful, in-depth and constructive > > > analysis of the process, including of remote participation. > > > > > > The difficulties remote participants faced went beyond a simple power > > > shortage on the last day of the IGF, as you implied. Technical and human > > > resources were not sufficient. This is exemplified by: simple audio > > > adjustments that technicians did not know how to perform, or by the fact > > > that the hired staff of remote moderators you mentioned were on strike > > > on the first day of the IGF because they were not receiving enough money > > > to cover for basic expenses at the venue, or even by the fact that some > > > workshop organizers, despite all the requests from the secretariat, did > > > not bother to reply if they had a moderator or not. > > > > > > So the fact that remote participation is a priority on IGF papers, as > > > you pointed out, says little. You asked Deidre "what she could possibly > > > want more". If you read Ginger's e-mail you will find a list of wishes. > > > And if the community thinks RP is important (and I think that the > > > increasing interest for remote participation confirms it is ), then we > > > should make a collective effort to take the opportunity of the process > > > of discussing the implementation of IGF improvements to give RP a big push. > > > > > > Marília > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Ginger Paque > > >> wrote: > > > > > > Adam said: > > > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very > > > important and exciting. > > > > > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example > > > and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech > > > glitches during last week's meetings should not even be > > > addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws > > > attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know > > > I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: > > > > > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > > > > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the > > > lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean > > > remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation > > > -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and > > > processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have > > > been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and > > > moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had > > > been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to > > > act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation > > > should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. > > > Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > > > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking > > > the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should > > > originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > > might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat > > > might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, > > > planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc > > > situations. > > > > > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the > > > RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become > > > part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote > > > hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. > > > > > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that > > > RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as > > > an integral part of the IGF meeting process. > > > > > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has > > > been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and > > > include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in > > > response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating > > > meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We > > > should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly > > > manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive > > > results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing > > > statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different > > > approach, with points I have made above. > > > > > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not > > > have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made > > > previously, so I have not done so. > > > > > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > > > participation! > > > > > > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > > > Diplo Foundation > > > > > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > /The latest from Diplo..../From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the > > > most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in > > > May 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and > > > *E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: > > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses*//* > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake > > >> wrote: > > > > > > Comment below: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making > > > it much easier > > > > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, > > > Jovan, > > > > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > > > > > > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also > > > place it on the > > > > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON > > > REMOTE > > > > PARTICIPATION > > > > > > > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the > > > Internet Governance > > > > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over > > > the last five > > > > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work > > > behind the > > > > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We > > > have seen how > > > > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with > > > extraordinary > > > > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment > > > that enables the > > > > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and > > > > ultimately access. > > > > > > > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum > > > Secretariat and UN DESA > > > > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote > > > Participation. > > > > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training > > > of remote > > > > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss > > > with remote > > > > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the > > > Secretariat to make > > > > remote participation a reality. > > > > > > > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote > > > participation is a > > > > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) > > > and we > > > > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > > > > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) > > > meetings, and the > > > > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to > > > observers. > > > > > > > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an > > > integral part > > > > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is > > > impossible to sustain > > > > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote > > > participation. > > > > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together > > > to address > > > > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have > > > yet to be > > > > addressed[1]. > > > > > > > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the > > > host to ensure > > > > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions > > > and not just > > > > the Main Sessions. > > > > > > > > > > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: > > > > > > "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from > > > the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop > > > meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time > > > transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were > > > made available through the IGF Website." > > > > > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > > > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > > > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of > > > people > > > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more > > > about > > > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical > > > team from > > > > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) > > > which was > > > > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil > > > Society Coordinator > > > > Vittorio Bertola. > > > > > > > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that > > > occurred with the > > > > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning > > > session, (the > > > > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were > > > effectively > > > > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > > > > > > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty > > > in contacting > > > > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more > > > than one > > > > function. > > > > > > > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to > > > consider the > > > > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF > > > itself, and work > > > > together to bring them about: > > > > > > > > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline > > > participants > > > > through planning meetings to give online and offline > > > participants an equal > > > > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > > > > > > > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate > > > bandwidth to > > > > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in > > > advance to > > > > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > > > > > > > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote > > > participation and > > > > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for > > > meeting hosts, > > > > facilitators and chairs. > > > > > > > > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all > > > meetings, > > > > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to > > > engage through > > > > RP that will be available. > > > > > > > > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation > > > coordinator/moderators (who > > > > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for > > > > interactions between the meeting’s physical > > > participants/current speaker, > > > > the Chair and the remote participants). > > > > > > > > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote > > > participants > > > > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those > > > physically present > > > > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > > > > > > > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > > > > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > > > > > > > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text > > > channel, as well as > > > > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of > > > the meeting > > > > > > > > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through > > > interactive > > > > presentations access through RP. > > > > > > > > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > > > > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil > > > Society that > > > > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote > > > Participation and to ensure > > > > the incorporation of critical elements that have been > > > highlighted to ensure > > > > improved remote participation processes. > > > > > > > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to > > > -face participation, > > > > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > > > > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the > > > meetings, and who wish > > > > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a > > > central role in > > > > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote > > > > participation. > > > > > > > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments > > > and private > > > > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > > > > > > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating > > > tangible outcomes to > > > > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a > > > reality. > > > > > > > > There are regions around the world where transportation is > > > extremely > > > > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 > > > countries and > > > > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of > > > these > > > > countries could access the IGF. > > > > > > > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF > > > culture where > > > > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested > > > methodology. > > > > > > > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored > > > as well > > > > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power > > > supply and > > > > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to > > > maintain a > > > > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats > > > should also > > > > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth > > > capacity to sustain > > > > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > > > > > > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and > > > should also > > > > include the following:- > > > > > > > > · Outreach. > > > > > > > > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > > > > > > > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly > > > before the > > > > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > > > > > > > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and > > > Moderators whilst > > > > noting the limitations. > > > > > > > > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society > > > and governments > > > > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > > > > > > > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG > > > and national, > > > > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > > > > > > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published > > > guidelines and > > > > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 > > > participants > > > > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > > > > > > > Ends > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Dear Sala, > > > >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just > > > catching up > > > >> with reading the messages. > > > >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. > > > >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, > > > although from > > > >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded > > > during the > > > >> discussions today? > > > >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. > > > >> De > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Dear Deirdre, > > > >>> > > > >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil > > > society component > > > >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. > > > >>> > > > >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be > > > super > > > >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We > > > will also be > > > >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > > >>> > > > >>> Kind Regards, > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > >>> > > > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" > > > Sir William > > > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > > > FGV Direito Rio > > > > > > Center for Technology and Society > > > Getulio Vargas Foundation > > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 25 05:17:33 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:17:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <1330143159.47811.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> <1330143159.47811.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2012/2/25 Imran Ahmed Shah "Many of the individuals, working groups (like RPWG) and public and private > organizations has worked a lot in advocating the requirements and > functionalities development of the right means and utilities to eliminate > the face to face meeting by facilitating them through different > applications, whereas the focal point of the meeting participants may > obtain the presence of the remote participants and/or the individuals or > groups may get connected with the face to face meeting participants without > missing the meeting while they are not physically present in the meeting". Is what we discussed to eliminate face to face or are we looking for the solution approaches to allow more to participate in discussions on IGF from their location? I do not agree on the part highlighted in yellow. Baudouin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 05:46:18 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:46:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> <1330143159.47811.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I suggest replacing "eliminate" to "improve" to stay in a positive dimension . "Many people, working groups (as RPWG) and public and private organizations has worked extensively in the defense needs and development capabilities of law means and utilities to improve face to face meeting by facilitating them through different applications, while the focus of the meeting participants can obtain the presence of remote participants and / or individuals or groups can connect face to face with the participants in the meeting without missing the meeting so that 'they are not physically present at the meeting". SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/25 Baudouin SCHOMBE > > > 2012/2/25 Imran Ahmed Shah > > "Many of the individuals, working groups (like RPWG) and public and >> private organizations has worked a lot in advocating the requirements >> and functionalities development of the right means and utilities to >> eliminate the face to face meeting by facilitating them through different >> applications, whereas the focal point of the meeting participants may >> obtain the presence of the remote participants and/or the individuals or >> groups may get connected with the face to face meeting participants without >> missing the meeting while they are not physically present in the meeting". > > > Is what we discussed to eliminate face to face or are we looking for the solution > approaches to allow more to participate in discussions on IGF from their > location? > I do not agree on the part highlighted in yellow. > > Baudouin > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 25 05:48:12 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:48:12 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> <1330143159.47811.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks Schombe. On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > I suggest replacing "eliminate" to "improve" to stay in a positive > dimension. > > "Many people, working groups (as RPWG) and public and private organizations > has worked extensively in the defense needs and development capabilities of > law means and utilities to improve face to face meeting by facilitating them > through different applications, while the focus of the meeting participants > can obtain the presence of remote participants and / or individuals or > groups can connect face to face with the participants in the meeting without > missing the meeting so that 'they are not physically present at the > meeting". > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype                 : b.schombe > blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > > 2012/2/25 Baudouin SCHOMBE >> >> >> >> 2012/2/25 Imran Ahmed Shah >> >>> "Many of the individuals, working groups (like RPWG) and public and >>> private organizations has worked a lot in advocating the requirements and >>> functionalities development of the right means and utilities to eliminate >>> the face to face meeting by facilitating them through different >>> applications, whereas the focal point of the meeting participants may obtain >>> the presence of the remote participants and/or the individuals or groups may >>> get connected with the face to face meeting participants without missing the >>> meeting while they are not physically present in the meeting". >> >> >> Is what we discussed to eliminate face to face or are we looking for the >> solution approaches to allow more to participate in discussions on IGF from >> their location? >> I do not agree on the part highlighted in yellow. >> >> Baudouin >> > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 06:59:12 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:59:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <559nc2$k6$PPFA7h@internetpolicyagency.com> <8C566CDA-0B3F-4741-AABF-094F446F40E3@ciroap.org> <46B69E1D-CF91-4E31-A9CC-4DD306D57CB0@privaterra.org> <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> <1330143159.47811.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I thoroughly support this suggestion. I suspect this is my fault - I suggested trying ONE remote participation only meeting so that everyone would understand the difficulties and maybe even offer solutions. Certainly the intention is to IMPROVE not to eliminate. Deirdre On 25 February 2012 06:46, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > I suggest replacing "eliminate" to "improve" to stay in a positive > dimension. > > "Many people, working groups (as RPWG) and public and private > organizations has worked extensively in the defense needs and development > capabilities of law means and utilities to improve face to face meeting > by facilitating them through different applications, while the focus of the > meeting participants can obtain the presence of remote participants and / > or individuals or groups can connect face to face with the participants in > the meeting without missing the meeting so that 'they are not physically > present at the meeting". > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > > 2012/2/25 Baudouin SCHOMBE > >> >> >> 2012/2/25 Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> "Many of the individuals, working groups (like RPWG) and public and >>> private organizations has worked a lot in advocating the requirements >>> and functionalities development of the right means and utilities to >>> eliminate the face to face meeting by facilitating them through different >>> applications, whereas the focal point of the meeting participants may >>> obtain the presence of the remote participants and/or the individuals or >>> groups may get connected with the face to face meeting participants without >>> missing the meeting while they are not physically present in the meeting". >> >> >> Is what we discussed to eliminate face to face or are we looking for the solution >> approaches to allow more to participate in discussions on IGF from their >> location? >> I do not agree on the part highlighted in yellow. >> >> Baudouin >> >> > -- “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 anriette at apc.org Sat Feb 25 07:06:16 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 14:06:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] RM...the tiny little thing that if groomed well In-Reply-To: References: <4F481763.7020405@apc.org> <1330143159.47811.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F48CEB8.9040504@apc.org> Nnenna Nkwananma's blog on the MAG and RM http://nnennaorg.blogspot.com/2012/02/mag-to-be-or-not-to-be.html MAG: To be or not to be? I am reading Ginger's "actions call" for MAG self/nominations. And it is so spirited that I have decided to write down my "thoughts" here as a blog. Will be my third blog of the day.. Looks like I'm in a bloggy mood.. if ever such a word exists. In reading the scoring, I see that I actually have a "BIG FAT" chance. Here is the way I see it: 1. I will get a 10% for being in Côte d'Ivoire, a country that has yet to be on the MAG 2. I will get another 10% for being from a developing country 3. And another 10% for not being male. If I add that I have been active in my national IGICI and the West Africa IGF - WAIGF and also the AfIGF that is taking shape.. I sure will get some extra points. Then I will add a 10 year history in WSIS and its related activities, and a formal training in International relations and linguistic diversity etc So I think I will be around something like 70 or 80% The question, therefore, that warrants this blog is "so why are you not nominating yourself or seeking someone to do so? Even despite the fact that you have received solicitations asking you to do so?" To be or not be. Here is my shot: Thanks, but NO, thanks. I will pass on this one. Why? Well for at least 5 reasons: 1. I am busy. I wish I could get 30 hours a day, but no, I dont have it. I am doing this blog at about 100 minutes to midnight! I would love to spare myself the MAG work. 2. I have downgraded ALL unpaid trips to anywhere outside of Africa. I cannot spend 3 days running visa, spend at least 200$ in the case of a Schengen one, and not get paid for that. Especially now that the ECOWAS passport is 32 pages instead of 48. 3. Anybody knows where a Nigerian living in Côte d'Ivoire will get a visa for Azerbaijan? I may probably need to do a trip to one other African country first.. Okay, enough with the visa thing..You only get a visa problem when THE FUNDING problem itself has been resolved. And the song around "civil society participation", "gender balance" and "participation from developing countries" is beginning to tire my Spirit. 4. I want to invest locally and if possible invest in action. I am a development-oriented African. Though words are of the legal profession and the whole of the "activism" thing is great.. but you know what? Over the years I have grown wider but also wiser. I want action, change, things done. At this age and weight.. I have a leaning for "less talk, more action" 5. I have 512 KBPS on wifi at home here. Add to that, that little tiny thing that if groomed well will come in handy for folks like me.. Remote Participation. I'd rather be reclining on my couch in my sitting room with this netbook of mine, eating my own kitchen food, enjoying the warm and airy Abidjan weather while connected remotely than to be trudging in any Geneva cold paying 15$ for ugly sandwiches! MAG: To be or not to be? Aint no question for me.. I will PASS! Maybe some time later, if/when things change. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 07:12:40 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 04:12:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Remote Participation Message-ID: <1330171960.22211.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Thanks Schombe for correction. You are right, these efforts were not made to eliminate the F2F. I think the sentence may be corrected as: ". . . to eliminate the dependency of physical presence for a 'Face to Face' meeting by facilitating them . . ." Schombe I also agree and quoted that while advocating for the RP functionality (operational and technical), the provision for the physical participation as Face-to-Face meetings may not be eliminated. I also have quoted earlier that the travel support funding may be affected if the RP is supposed to the equal alternative for the F2F meetings. Thanks Imran ------------------------------On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 3:48 PM PKT Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Thanks Schombe.>>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:>> I suggest replacing "eliminate" to "improve" to stay in a positive>> dimension.>>>> "Many people, working groups (as RPWG) and public and private organizations>> has worked extensively in the defense needs and development capabilities of>> law means and utilities to improve face to face meeting by facilitating them>> through different applications, while the focus of the meeting participants>> can obtain the presence of remote participants and / or individuals or>> groups can connect face to face with the participants in the meeting without>> missing the meeting so that 'they are not physically present at the>> meeting".>>>>>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN>>>> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491>> email : b.schombe at gmail.com>> skype : b.schombe>> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr>> Site Web : www.ticafrica.net>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/2/25 Baudouin SCHOMBE >>>>>>>> 2012/2/25 Imran Ahmed Shah >>>>> "Many of the individuals, working groups (like RPWG) and public and>>> private organizations has worked a lot in advocating the requirements and>>> functionalities development of the right means and utilities to eliminate>>> the face to face meeting by facilitating them through different>>> applications, whereas the focal point of the meeting participants may obtain>>> the presence of the remote participants and/or the individuals or groups may>>> get connected with the face to face meeting participants without missing the>>> meeting while they are not physically present in the meeting".>>>>>> Is what we discussed to eliminate face to face or are we looking for the>> solution approaches to allow more to participate in discussions on IGF from>> their location?>> I do not agree on the part highlighted in yellow.>>>> Baudouin>>>>>>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 07:34:55 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:34:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <1330171960.22211.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1330171960.22211.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: We have to find a way to separate the RP issue from the funding for physical presence issue. They are DIFFERENT issues. We should include acknowledgment of the RP work so far of the IGF secretariat. We should point to the work of the RPWG We could point to the anomaly in logic of having meetings ABOUT the Internet without using the Internet as much as possible to extend the reach of the meeting. And we should try to do it all in 300 words or less so that the main thrust of our argument is unavoidably clear. There was a very concise proposal from the meetings last week. Is this a reasonable approach? Deirdre On 25 February 2012 08:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Thanks Schombe for correction. > > You are right, these efforts were not made to eliminate the F2F. > I think the sentence may be corrected as: > > ". . . to eliminate the dependency of physical presence for a 'Face to > Face' meeting by facilitating them . . ." > > Schombe I also agree and quoted that while advocating for the RP > functionality (operational and technical), the provision for the physical > participation as Face-to-Face meetings may not be eliminated. I also have > quoted earlier that the travel support funding may be affected if the RP is > supposed to the equal alternative for the F2F meetings. > > Thanks > > Imran > ------------------------------On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 3:48 PM PKT Salanieta > T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Thanks Schombe.>>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:46 > PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:>> I suggest replacing > "eliminate" to "improve" to stay in a positive>> dimension.>>>> "Many > people, working groups (as RPWG) and public and private organizations>> has > worked extensively in the defense needs and development capabilities of>> > law means and utilities to improve face to face meeting by facilitating > them>> through different applications, while the focus of the meeting > participants>> can obtain the presence of remote participants and / or > individuals or>> groups can connect face to face with the participants in > the meeting without>> missing the meeting so that 'they are not physically > present at the>> meeting".>>>>>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN>>>> Téléphone mobile: > +243998983491>> email : b.schombe at gmail.com>> skype > : > b.schombe>> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr>> Site > Web : www.ticafrica.net>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/2/25 Baudouin > SCHOMBE >>>>>>>> 2012/2/25 Imran Ahmed Shah < > ias_pk at yahoo.com>>>>>> "Many of the individuals, working groups (like > RPWG) and public and>>> private organizations has worked a lot in > advocating the requirements and>>> functionalities development of the right > means and utilities to eliminate>>> the face to face meeting by > facilitating them through different>>> applications, whereas the focal > point of the meeting participants may obtain>>> the presence of the remote > participants and/or the individuals or groups may>>> get connected with the > face to face meeting participants without missing the>>> meeting while they > are not physically present in the meeting".>>>>>> Is what we discussed to > eliminate face to face or are we looking for the>> solution approaches to > allow more to participate in discussions > on IGF from>> their location?>> I do not agree on the part highlighted in > yellow.>>>> Baudouin>>>>>>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka > Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 > 998 2851> > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 07:39:57 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:39:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So can we speak to 'vulnerable people' generally and provide sub-headings to identify them? The trouble is that 'vulnerable' is such a huge word. Each of us is vulnerable at some time for some reason. On 25 February 2012 03:30, Yuliya Morenets wrote: > Dear Sala, Dear all, > > We strongly believe that the issues of the participation of vulnerable > people in the Information Society and their voice should be raised and > we propose to include this under "Access and Diversity". > > > Kind regards, Yuliya > TaC-Together against Cybercrime > > Le 23/2/2012, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > a écrit: > > >Hi everyone, > > > >Let me know if you would like to add additional thoughts etc. Volunteers > >are still needed to consolidate the themes etc to make it more coherent > and > >will soon put it back to the list through the Statement Workspace for the > >rough consensus call before it is put to the MAG. > > > >Kind Regards, > >Sala > > > >On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > >salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Tim Davies < > >> tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> Hello Imran and others, > >>> > >>> I'm also uncomfortable if we frame 'Internet for Kids' as creating some > >>> sort of separate tightly filtered Internet. I would see the task of > >>> focussing on the Internet for Children much more as a question of > ensuring > >>> there is positive content available to children in engaging online and > >>> making positive choices, rather than adults choosing to control > children's > >>> and young people's access to information with filtered online spaces. > >>> > >>> > >> Excellent point Tim. I like this approach. > >> > >> Perhaps if I could invite volunteers to work on consolidating the > >> comments and themes that have surfaced so we can get some level of > >> consensus. This is so we can prepare to send our thoughts. We will then > put > >> it to the list for a consensus call. > >> > >> I think a language of Children's Rights is useful here, and the ideas > >>> Imran suggest below, might fit into the proposal I put in the Human > Rights > >>> thread for reframing 'Child Protection' as a 'Children's Rights' > thread. > >>> Below is what I said in that thread about the value in taking a > Children's > >>> Rights approach to these issues: > >>> > >>> "On the suggestion for (11) on 'Online child protection', I would > really > >>> like to see this framed as 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision > and > >>> Participation', rather than solely 'child protection', particularly as > this > >>> is falling under a 'human rights' heading. > >>> > >>> I've written a bit on the justification for this at > >>> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23226/ - but essentially, when we adopt > >>> narrow narratives of 'online child protection' we end up (a) neglecting > >>> children and young people's broader set of rights to be active > >>> participants on the web, and to safe and supportive online provision; > and > >>> (b) we adopt counter-productive strategies which don't even serve the > >>> intended goals of keeping young people safe from harm online. " > >>> > >>> All the best > >>> > >>> Tim > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Fatima Cambronero < > >>> fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 2012/2/21 McTim > >>>> > >>>>> On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >>>>> > Thanks Sala for your comments, > >>>>> > This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were > >>>>> discussing > >>>>> > that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing, > >>>>> > configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or > >>>>> using > >>>>> > the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we > >>>>> devise some > >>>>> > governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser > to > >>>>> Kids > >>>>> > Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the > >>>>> confidence of > >>>>> > Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to > >>>>> Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate). > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> And what about their privacy? Do children have no Right to Privacy? > >>>> > >>>> From what age do children acquire the right to privacy? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Fatima > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> *Fatima Cambronero* > >>>> Abogada-Argentina > >>>> Directora de Investigaciones > >>>> *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* > >>>> http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ > >>>> > >>>> *@facambronero* > >>>> > >>>> *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* > >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.timdavies.org.uk > >>> 07834 856 303. > >>> @timdavies > >>> > >>> Co-director of Practical Participation: > >>> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > >>> -------------------------- > >>> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and > Wales > >>> - #5381958. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> > >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > >Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Sat Feb 25 08:34:53 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:34:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] I'm "virtually" baffled - a side-glance at "remote participation" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 24, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > Here we have a case where the basically honest, intelligent person who selects an adults-only chat room is essentially entrapped by a dishonest cop lying wildly about both age and gender, and no actual minor was either involved or even arguably harmed, and yet for some reason this is ONLY unseemly for the defendant Mr. Ritter? It seems to me that the overbreadth of the law in this area is also shameful and embarrassing, the fact that internet speech/conduct is more regulated than actual physical sexual contact is shameful and embarrassing, and (if you read a legal case in this area) the kind of legal gymnastic acrobatics that too many courts engage in so as to ensure the punishment of defendants like Mr. Ritter who have not created a single actual victim is shameful and embarrassing and also a form of (legal) obscenity and abuses and degrades the law in a way that is metaphorically pornographic. > Don't cops in the US face legal penalty for tricking US citizens into 'unlawful behavior' (or rather, hypothetical intentions, because that man did not in fact have sex with an underage girl, right)? This is one of the good examples with regards to the phenomena that those who do not understand Internet try to regulate it. Also, this case smells badly of intentional trap to prosecute that specific person. This of course is not practiced only in the US. 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 08:35:24 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 09:35:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <1330171960.22211.yint-ygo-j2me@web161005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In keeping with my 300 word proposal, here is a VERY brief (148 words) introductory summary. This could be followed by about 6 briefly stated points that make more specific recommendations. "A policy foundation has been laid for the implementation of remote participation (RP) as fully as possible at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meetings, and some staff are hired to facilitate. Also the Remote Participation Working Group RPWG) has been working to make RP a reality. In spite of this RP falls [far] short of being institutionalised. The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that all actors should be assiduous in facilitating this institutionalisation in whatever way possible. RP is essential to enable the level of inclusion which is a basic principle of the IGF. We need a balance between the both types of participations. We have the slogan ‘One World, One Internet and Everyone Connected’, but in fact we can’t assume to expect or provide the guaranteed same quality of service for everyone and everywhere round the globe. However we have a responsibility to be as inclusive as possible." Imran I think you make the most important point here We need a balance between the both types of participations. Last year the main theme for Nairobi included the word 'catalyst' - this year we need the word 'balance'. I have attached a word file with the text included in this message. Deirdre On 25 February 2012 08:34, Deirdre Williams wrote: > We have to find a way to separate the RP issue from the funding for > physical presence issue. > They are DIFFERENT issues. > We should include acknowledgment of the RP work so far of the IGF > secretariat. > We should point to the work of the RPWG > We could point to the anomaly in logic of having meetings ABOUT the > Internet without using the Internet as much as possible to extend the reach > of the meeting. > And we should try to do it all in 300 words or less so that the main > thrust of our argument is unavoidably clear. There was a very concise > proposal from the meetings last week. > Is this a reasonable approach? > Deirdre > > > On 25 February 2012 08:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> >> Thanks Schombe for correction. >> >> You are right, these efforts were not made to eliminate the F2F. >> I think the sentence may be corrected as: >> >> ". . . to eliminate the dependency of physical presence for a 'Face to >> Face' meeting by facilitating them . . ." >> >> Schombe I also agree and quoted that while advocating for the RP >> functionality (operational and technical), the provision for the physical >> participation as Face-to-Face meetings may not be eliminated. I also have >> quoted earlier that the travel support funding may be affected if the RP is >> supposed to the equal alternative for the F2F meetings. >> >> Thanks >> >> Imran >> ------------------------------On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 3:48 PM PKT Salanieta >> T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Thanks Schombe.>>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:46 >> PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:>> I suggest replacing >> "eliminate" to "improve" to stay in a positive>> dimension.>>>> "Many >> people, working groups (as RPWG) and public and private organizations>> has >> worked extensively in the defense needs and development capabilities of>> >> law means and utilities to improve face to face meeting by facilitating >> them>> through different applications, while the focus of the meeting >> participants>> can obtain the presence of remote participants and / or >> individuals or>> groups can connect face to face with the participants in >> the meeting without>> missing the meeting so that 'they are not physically >> present at the>> meeting".>>>>>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN>>>> Téléphone mobile: >> +243998983491>> email : b.schombe at gmail.com>> skype >> : >> b.schombe>> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr>> Site >> Web : www.ticafrica.net>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/2/25 Baudouin >> SCHOMBE >>>>>>>> 2012/2/25 Imran Ahmed Shah < >> ias_pk at yahoo.com>>>>>> "Many of the individuals, working groups (like >> RPWG) and public and>>> private organizations has worked a lot in >> advocating the requirements and>>> functionalities development of the right >> means and utilities to eliminate>>> the face to face meeting by >> facilitating them through different>>> applications, whereas the focal >> point of the meeting participants may obtain>>> the presence of the remote >> participants and/or the individuals or groups may>>> get connected with the >> face to face meeting participants without missing the>>> meeting while they >> are not physically present in the meeting".>>>>>> Is what we discussed to >> eliminate face to face or are we looking for the>> solution approaches to >> allow more to participate in discussions >> on IGF from>> their location?>> I do not agree on the part highlighted >> in yellow.>>>> Baudouin>>>>>>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka >> Sala>>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679 >> 998 2851> >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Summary RP.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24576 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 Feb 25 08:37:31 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:07:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: References: <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> Sala Despite my numerous requests to the contrary I am completely unable to understand why we should, consistently and religiously, mention private sector before civil society where ever they come together. Now this could not be a mistake because I always see it in this order, and even in this document they appear together more than once and always in the same order. So, obviously, there is some thinking behind it which I would like to be enlightened about. (Also why this sentence - "We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation." What does this mean.) I am also unable to understand the new process of seeking rough consensus that is being adopted. It has been an almost hallowed practice that once a statement is put for a 48 hour notice to invite rough consensus no changes can be made to it. But nowadays it seems that a statement is put out for rough consensus and at the same time changes/ comments to it are invited, and then the co-coordinators forward whatever new form of statement that they feel like forwarding. It is obviously impossible for anyone to say yes or no to a statement that is still being modified. Also, the practice has been that, before the 48 hour period, proposed changes to any statement have to be suggested on the email list here, with due justifications. There is a good reason for this. We follow principles of deliberative democracy where positions are negotiated and forwarded on basis of reasoning and deliberation. Frankly, I am quite lost.... pariminder On Friday 24 February 2012 10:30 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > This is a friendly reminder that there is still another 26 hours to go > if you would like to make further edits and comments on the new > insertions to the Statement on remote participation. > > Let us have your thoughts. Once the 26 hours has lapsed, we will take > the final document and send as the IGC Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > The Statement that I had sent in-text reflecting the new > contributions etc is now on the Statement Workspace. I would urge > you to visit http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 where > you can comment on specific paragraphs and suggest changes, > amendments and variations or reflections and thoughts. > > With our original Statement that was developed, was given to the > CSTD who have* *facilitated our concerns. This newly edited > Statement is put to the list for another 48 hours which will form > the official IGC position, so please make your voices heard. This > will be sent to the IGF Secretariat. > > Warm Regards from Fiji, > Sala > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 25 08:56:15 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:56:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> References: <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> I essentially agree with this. A few comments in line. On 25 Feb 2012, at 08:37, parminder wrote: > Sala > > Despite my numerous requests to the contrary I am completely unable to understand why we should, consistently and religiously, mention private sector before civil society where ever they come together. Now this could not be a mistake because I always see it in this order, and even in this document they appear together more than once and always in the same order. So, obviously, there is some thinking behind it which I would like to be enlightened about. > > (Also why this sentence - "We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation." What does this mean.) > > I am also unable to understand the new process of seeking rough consensus that is being adopted. It has been an almost hallowed practice that once a statement is put for a 48 hour notice to invite rough consensus no changes can be made to it. The only exceptions to this was that editorals were allowed as long as they did not change meeting. > But nowadays it seems that a statement is put out for rough consensus and at the same time changes/ comments to it are invited, and then the co-coordinators forward whatever new form of statement that they feel like forwarding. It is obviously impossible for anyone to say yes or no to a statement that is still being modified. > > Also, the practice has been that, before the 48 hour period, proposed changes to any statement have to be suggested on the email list here, with due justifications. In one variant of this process of reaching rough consensus, if a substantive change is made, the list is informed and the 48 hour clock restarts after the substantive, or possibly substantive, change is made. > There is a good reason for this. We follow principles of deliberative democracy where positions are negotiated and forwarded on basis of reasoning and deliberation. Frankly, I am quite lost.... pariminder > > On Friday 24 February 2012 10:30 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> This is a friendly reminder that there is still another 26 hours to go if you would like to make further edits and comments on the new insertions to the Statement on remote participation. >> >> Let us have your thoughts. Once the 26 hours has lapsed, we will take the final document and send as the IGC Statement to the IGF Secretariat. No document that has not been static for at least 48 hours of public comment should be sent as an IGC position. avri >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The Statement that I had sent in-text reflecting the new contributions etc is now on the Statement Workspace. I would urge you to visit http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 where you can comment on specific paragraphs and suggest changes, amendments and variations or reflections and thoughts. >> >> With our original Statement that was developed, was given to the CSTD who have facilitated our concerns. This newly edited Statement is put to the list for another 48 hours which will form the official IGC position, so please make your voices heard. This will be sent to the IGF Secretariat. >> >> Warm Regards from Fiji, >> Sala >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Feb 25 09:08:44 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 09:08:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> References: <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <31D4A815-A3E7-4E54-B99F-7FE5182E2665@acm.org> On 25 Feb 2012, at 08:37, parminder wrote: > > (Also why this sentence - "We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation." What does this mean.) We want them to not only support RP in principle, but put serious effort into making it happen? i.e. money? For the most part when it comes to things like this, CS can provide the so-called 'sweat equitiy', i.e the labor of the RPWG - those who dedicate nearly full time efforts to making it happen. Without proper expenditures and perhaps even regulations, e.g. about the constraints on streaming in some regions, no amount of effort on the part of the RPWG can fully succeed. So could it mean that: at this point CS is working essentially alone in this, except for some spotty industry support and we need governments and the private sector to join in partnership with CS to make this happen? 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 09:07:47 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 10:07:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> References: <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> Message-ID: I completely lost touch with the dates and assumed that we were still debating a text which would then be put to the IGC for a consensus call. Thank you for pointing this > No document that has not been static for at least 48 hours of public > comment should be sent as an IGC position. out. I agree with you completely. Deirdre On 25 February 2012 09:56, Avri Doria wrote: > > I essentially agree with this. > > A few comments in line. > > On 25 Feb 2012, at 08:37, parminder wrote: > > > Sala > > > > Despite my numerous requests to the contrary I am completely unable to > understand why we should, consistently and religiously, mention private > sector before civil society where ever they come together. Now this could > not be a mistake because I always see it in this order, and even in this > document they appear together more than once and always in the same order. > So, obviously, there is some thinking behind it which I would like to be > enlightened about. > > > > (Also why this sentence - "We also encourage greater partnership between > the governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation." What > does this mean.) > > > > I am also unable to understand the new process of seeking rough > consensus that is being adopted. It has been an almost hallowed practice > that once a statement is put for a 48 hour notice to invite rough consensus > no changes can be made to it. > > The only exceptions to this was that editorals were allowed as long as > they did not change meeting. > > > But nowadays it seems that a statement is put out for rough consensus > and at the same time changes/ comments to it are invited, and then the > co-coordinators forward whatever new form of statement that they feel like > forwarding. It is obviously impossible for anyone to say yes or no to a > statement that is still being modified. > > > > Also, the practice has been that, before the 48 hour period, proposed > changes to any statement have to be suggested on the email list here, with > due justifications. > > In one variant of this process of reaching rough consensus, if a > substantive change is made, the list is informed and the 48 hour clock > restarts after the substantive, or possibly substantive, change is made. > > > There is a good reason for this. We follow principles of deliberative > democracy where positions are negotiated and forwarded on basis of > reasoning and deliberation. Frankly, I am quite lost.... pariminder > > > > > > On Friday 24 February 2012 10:30 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> This is a friendly reminder that there is still another 26 hours to go > if you would like to make further edits and comments on the new insertions > to the Statement on remote participation. > >> > >> Let us have your thoughts. Once the 26 hours has lapsed, we will take > the final document and send as the IGC Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > > No document that has not been static for at least 48 hours of public > comment should be sent as an IGC position. > > avri > > > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> Sala > >> > >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues, > >> > >> The Statement that I had sent in-text reflecting the new contributions > etc is now on the Statement Workspace. I would urge you to visit > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 where you can comment on > specific paragraphs and suggest changes, amendments and variations or > reflections and thoughts. > >> > >> With our original Statement that was developed, was given to the CSTD > who have facilitated our concerns. This newly edited Statement is put to > the list for another 48 hours which will form the official IGC position, so > please make your voices heard. This will be sent to the IGF Secretariat. > >> > >> Warm Regards from Fiji, > >> Sala > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> > >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> > >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Sat Feb 25 10:58:26 2012 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:58:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A_Deali?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ng_with_the_Borg_=28Or__=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Really_Th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?inking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> Message-ID: <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Folks may be interested in my current experiences in the online world. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 25 11:44:25 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 04:44:25 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> References: <94$28SVRXkQPFATT@internetpolicyagency.com> <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 1:37 AM, parminder wrote: > Sala > > Despite my numerous requests to the contrary I am completely unable to > understand why we should, consistently and religiously, mention private > sector before civil society where ever they come together. [Thanks you did mention this once] Now this could > not be  a mistake because I always see it in this order, and even in this > document they appear together more than once and always in the same order. [The Statement has been in the workspace where people can comment on the various paragraphs] > So, obviously, there is some thinking behind it which I would like to be > enlightened about. > > (Also why this- "We also encourage greater partnership between the > governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation." What does > this mean.) Countries differ in regulatory models. Governments can promote the existence of an information Society. They can provide the relevant stimuli to enable the private sector to offer sponsorship of these sort of environment that enables and allows for collaboration. The Private Sector such as Telcos or ISPs for instance has the capability of laying FttX to conference venues which could do wonders to bandwidth capability as part of their contribution to the event. > > I am also unable to understand the new process of seeking rough consensus > that is being adopted. In the context of the Remote Participation Statement that was initially developed, this was sent to the CSTD civil society members for the purposes of empowering them with the "wishes of the list". I did not send it as yet to the IGF Secretariat and saw that there were comments coming in.You will see on the Statement Workspace that there are two versions of the Statement. One was the version that went to the CSTD and the other one that reflects the new comments and additions that came later. The newly revised Statement will then be sent to the IGF Secretariat. It has been an almost hallowed practice that once a > statement is put for a 48 hour notice to invite rough consensus no changes > can be made to it. But nowadays it seems that a statement is put out for > rough consensus and at the same time changes/ comments to it are invited, > and then the co-coordinators forward whatever new form of statement that > they feel like forwarding. It is obviously impossible for anyone to  say yes > or no to a statement that is still being modified. I think it is always safe to use the Charter as a guideline and this is what the Charter says: [Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion.] The use of "at least 48 hours" allows for more than 48 hours of final discussion. There is discretion (captured within the semantics) that allows for further extended discussion beyond the 48 hours and this is something that coordinators have the discretion to assess and see. When Izumi initiated the preparation of the Statement it was meant for use at the CSTD workshop. The consolidation of information was done by Deirdre and I posted it on the Statement Workspace where people commented on. There were also comments from the list. This earlier version went to the CSTD civil society members in an email. Marilia advised that they used some of the things that we highlighted in the Statement in their deliberations. Marilia asked me whether I had sent it to the IGF Secretariat and I advised her that we had not. However, it has evolved to something that we will send to the IGF Secretariat on the issue of Remote Participation by members of RPWG. Since there were comments still flowing in, I retained the early version which is in the Statement Workspace. I then incorporated the new thoughts and expression of how to make the earlier version better. people have been commenting and raising issues etc. > > Also, the practice has been that, before the 48 hour period, proposed > changes to any statement have to be suggested on the email list here, with > due justifications. Yes, this is largely done but we also have a Statements Workspace which enables us to work more efficiently by allowing and capturing people's comments on specific paragraphs etc. The list is simultaneously open to people interacting on the said issues. I have addressed the "before 48 hour period" in this case. We had not sent the statement to the IGF Secretariat yet and still have time to polish our statement. There is a good reason for this. We follow principles of > deliberative democracy where positions are negotiated and forwarded on basis > of reasoning and deliberation. If you look at the manner of interaction on the threads in relation to RP people do have their say and in fact are invited to draft "texts" and "language" etc. I don't know what you mean by deliberative and always happy to learn. Frankly, I am quite lost.... pariminder > > On Friday 24 February 2012 10:30 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > This is a friendly reminder that there is still another 26 hours to go if > you would like to make further edits and comments on the new insertions to > the Statement on remote participation. > > Let us have your thoughts. Once the 26 hours has lapsed, we will take the > final document and send as the IGC Statement to the IGF Secretariat. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> The Statement that I had sent in-text reflecting the new contributions etc >> is now on the Statement Workspace. I would urge you to visit >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 where you can comment on >> specific paragraphs and suggest changes, amendments and variations or >> reflections and thoughts. >> >> With our original Statement that was developed, was given to the CSTD who >> have facilitated our concerns. This newly edited Statement is put to the >> list for another 48 hours which will form the official IGC position, so >> please make your voices heard. This will be sent to the IGF Secretariat. >> >> Warm Regards from Fiji, >> Sala >> >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Feb 25 11:58:12 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:58:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Remote Participation Message-ID: <1330189092.18461.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> There are at least two types of the Remote Participants: 1. Just Observers and Audience (will listen/ view or vote) 2. Attendees (who are invited to attend meeting to complete the quorum) like Members of Panel/ MAG/ Speakers/ Presenters. (Two-way) First Category at least require one way service. Second category must require both way communication and pre allocated time slots for live and interactive discussion for active participation. Our report should be concise, short, to the point and as much comprehensive to address all the points or concerns discussed among us. Thanks Imran ------------------------------On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 5:34 PM PKT Deirdre Williams wrote:>We have to find a way to separate the RP issue from the funding for>physical presence issue.>They are DIFFERENT issues.>We should include acknowledgment of the RP work so far of the IGF>secretariat.>We should point to the work of the RPWG>We could point to the anomaly in logic of having meetings ABOUT the>Internet without using the Internet as much as possible to extend the reach>of the meeting.>And we should try to do it all in 300 words or less so that the main thrust>of our argument is unavoidably clear. There was a very concise proposal>from the meetings last week.>Is this a reasonable approach?>Deirdre>>On 25 February 2012 08:12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote:>>>>> Thanks Schombe for correction.>>>> You are right, these efforts were not made to eliminate the F2F.>> I think the sentence may be corrected as:>>>> ". . . to eliminate the dependency of physical presence for a 'Face to>> Face' meeting by facilitating them . . .">>>> Schombe I also agree and quoted that while advocating for the RP>> functionality (operational and technical), the provision for the physical>> participation as Face-to-Face meetings may not be eliminated. I also have>> quoted earlier that the travel support funding may be affected if the RP is>> supposed to the equal alternative for the F2F meetings.>>>> Thanks>>>> Imran>> ------------------------------On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 3:48 PM PKT Salanieta>> T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Thanks Schombe.>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:46>> PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:> I suggest replacing>> "eliminate" to "improve" to stay in a positive> dimension.>> "Many>> people, working groups (as RPWG) and public and private organizations> has>> worked extensively in the defense needs and development capabilities of>>> law means and utilities to improve face to face meeting by facilitating>> them> through different applications, while the focus of the meeting>> participants> can obtain the presence of remote participants and / or>> individuals or> groups can connect face to face with the participants in>> the meeting without> missing the meeting so that 'they are not physically>> present at the> meeting".>>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN>> Téléphone mobile:>> +243998983491> email : b.schombe at gmail.com> skype>> :>> b.schombe> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr> Site>> Web : www.ticafrica.net>>>>>> 2012/2/25 Baudouin>> SCHOMBE >>>> 2012/2/25 Imran Ahmed Shah <>> ias_pk at yahoo.com>>> "Many of the individuals, working groups (like>> RPWG) and public and>> private organizations has worked a lot in>> advocating the requirements and>> functionalities development of the right>> means and utilities to eliminate>> the face to face meeting by>> facilitating them through different>> applications, whereas the focal>> point of the meeting participants may obtain>> the presence of the remote>> participants and/or the individuals or groups may>> get connected with the>> face to face meeting participants without missing the>> meeting while they>> are not physically present in the meeting".>>> Is what we discussed to>> eliminate face to face or are we looking for the> solution approaches to>> allow more to participate in discussions>> on IGF from> their location?> I do not agree on the part highlighted in>> yellow.>> Baudouin>>>>-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka>> Sala>Tweeter: @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679>> 998 2851>>>>>>>-- >“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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 25 12:05:27 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:35:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report In-Reply-To: References: <4F47E3F6.5020301@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <4F4914D7.7060609@itforchange.net> Dear All Most of the comments that I offer below are something I would prefer to do on a closed members only list, but since, for reasons which remain unclear to me, we dont have one, I will have to do so here. First of all, I agree with what Avri said in an email - the MAG nomination process this time around has been a disaster. Let's not mince our words, since it is not a small issue. It involves basic questions of IGC's legitimacy in the eyes of the world. We cant simply let it pass by saying, ok, we learn lessons from everything in life. Civil society's very standing and legitimacy depends on its conduct, its processes, since we dont come to occupy the position we do with an specific politically legitimising process - nothing other than what we stand for and what we do. And this is legitimacy that needs to be renewed daily, and it is lost much much faster than it can be built. The primary responsible for what happened must lie with the non voting chair, who, it is good to be reminded, unlike other nomcom members is not selected by lottery. S/he volunteers to take up the task. So, when I read hints of non performance of crucial tasks by the nomcom chair, I dont know what to make of it. And why in that case was the chair not replaced by the coordinators. And I cannot at all understand what is meant by statements like the following in the nomcom report. "....the participating members did not receive all communications pertaining to the process." We need to know more clearly what is meant by this. What communication, and who was responsible for it. I understand part of it was that the nomcom did not get a very large proportion of the names to be considered. Who is responsible for this? What really happened? What else did not get communicated? These are basic issues of transparency and accountability, and we need to come completely clean on it. This is not being good and nice to each other. This is about our vision and values for democratic governance processes. We cannot go around preaching them to others if we cannot uphold even basic standards ourselves. I think another important factor responsible for what happened is that that one of the co coordinator (the more experienced one ) was himself a candidate and thus could not involve himself to looking into and correcting the mess that was obviously developing. Coordinators, as the elected IGC office bearers, are the primary custodians of IGC's processes, and election offices for nomination processes. And this role is very necessary and can be performed without getting involved in the actual decisions about selection of the nominees. This has been done in earlier times. It is the coordinators who have to keep a very close watch at the process - and make themselves pro-actively available at all times to the nomcom for process related issues. It has been a practice for long that co-coordinators do not stand for being nominated by an IGC noncom, and there was of course good reason for that. I think that we should go back to that practice, and if needed include it in the charter. I can clearly see how Izumi could not have taken any action nor given advice when things were obviously not going fine, and also, how, if he was in the position to do so, it is my judgement, that much could have been averted. Just the fact that the names of a large proportion of the nominees did not actually get considered by nomcom - becuase apparently they did not receive them - would make the outcome of the process infructuous or invalid, though I dont want to labor this point. ( I believe that though the process was almost fatally flawed, it is the collective will of the IGC, including mine, the present set of nominees should stay as the ones that are fully supported and forwarded by IGC.) I also think that the invitation for nomcom nominees was not advertised enough, especially close to the deadline, which is when most names pour in. Getting 10 nominees and selecting 7 of them does not sound very good, and is unlikely to further our cause as a group which claims to be the premier IG CS group, globally. And to advertise well is both the duty of the nomcom chair and the coordinators. There were other oddities about the process - a list was put out as a provisional list of selected people, of which I dont see any reason. And then the nomcom report mentions this fact of putting out a provisional list as the reason that they could not do any later amendments etc. There simply seems to a lot of adhocism going around about what has to be a very serious and responsible process. parminder On Saturday 25 February 2012 01:53 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly, allow me to take the time to thank the NomCom for completing > the task that was assigned to them. The work of the NomCom is not an > easy one. They faced extraordinary circumstances that made their work > challenging. > > Their cover letter and report is enclosed. I thank all those who took > the time to apply and congratulate the Nominees and note the > recommendation by the NomCom to support APC's list of candidates. For > those that did not make the selection, I hope that you will please try > again when it opens up again. > > Kind Regards, > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Thomas Lowenhaupt* > > Date: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:24 AM > Subject: Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > >, > "nomcom at lists.igcaucus.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 Sat Feb 25 12:06:41 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 05:06:41 +1200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Dealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Re?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ally_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Folks may be interested in my current experiences in the online world. > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ > > > I thoroughly enjoyed it and I can see that are literally off gmail now. So > was it ever restored and have you recovered all that information? > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Sat Feb 25 12:13:14 2012 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu (Yuliya Morenets) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:13:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Le 25/2/2012, "Deirdre Williams" a écrit: >So can we speak to 'vulnerable people' generally and provide sub-headings >to identify them? I think yes, and it will allow to speak and raise the issues for different categories of vulnerable people. >The trouble is that 'vulnerable' is such a huge word. Each of us is >vulnerable at some time for some reason. It's true, but I'd take the definition as proposed in Geneva Declaration and Tunis Agenda for example, to start the discussion. Yuliya >On 25 February 2012 03:30, Yuliya Morenets >wrote: > >> Dear Sala, Dear all, >> >> We strongly believe that the issues of the participation of vulnerable >> people in the Information Society and their voice should be raised and >> we propose to include this under "Access and Diversity". >> >> >> Kind regards, Yuliya >> TaC-Together against Cybercrime >> >> Le 23/2/2012, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> a écrit: >> >> >Hi everyone, >> > >> >Let me know if you would like to add additional thoughts etc. Volunteers >> >are still needed to consolidate the themes etc to make it more coherent >> and >> >will soon put it back to the list through the Statement Workspace for the >> >rough consensus call before it is put to the MAG. >> > >> >Kind Regards, >> >Sala >> > >> >On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> >salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Tim Davies < >> >> tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hello Imran and others, >> >>> >> >>> I'm also uncomfortable if we frame 'Internet for Kids' as creating some >> >>> sort of separate tightly filtered Internet. I would see the task of >> >>> focussing on the Internet for Children much more as a question of >> ensuring >> >>> there is positive content available to children in engaging online and >> >>> making positive choices, rather than adults choosing to control >> children's >> >>> and young people's access to information with filtered online spaces. >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Excellent point Tim. I like this approach. >> >> >> >> Perhaps if I could invite volunteers to work on consolidating the >> >> comments and themes that have surfaced so we can get some level of >> >> consensus. This is so we can prepare to send our thoughts. We will then >> put >> >> it to the list for a consensus call. >> >> >> >> I think a language of Children's Rights is useful here, and the ideas >> >>> Imran suggest below, might fit into the proposal I put in the Human >> Rights >> >>> thread for reframing 'Child Protection' as a 'Children's Rights' >> thread. >> >>> Below is what I said in that thread about the value in taking a >> Children's >> >>> Rights approach to these issues: >> >>> >> >>> "On the suggestion for (11) on 'Online child protection', I would >> really >> >>> like to see this framed as 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision >> and >> >>> Participation', rather than solely 'child protection', particularly as >> this >> >>> is falling under a 'human rights' heading. >> >>> >> >>> I've written a bit on the justification for this at >> >>> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23226/ - but essentially, when we adopt >> >>> narrow narratives of 'online child protection' we end up (a) neglecting >> >>> children and young people's broader set of rights to be active >> >>> participants on the web, and to safe and supportive online provision; >> and >> >>> (b) we adopt counter-productive strategies which don't even serve the >> >>> intended goals of keeping young people safe from harm online. " >> >>> >> >>> All the best >> >>> >> >>> Tim >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Fatima Cambronero < >> >>> fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> 2012/2/21 McTim >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>>>> > Thanks Sala for your comments, >> >>>>> > This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were >> >>>>> discussing >> >>>>> > that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online surfing, >> >>>>> > configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of things, or >> >>>>> using >> >>>>> > the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we >> >>>>> devise some >> >>>>> > governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single browser >> to >> >>>>> Kids >> >>>>> > Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the >> >>>>> confidence of >> >>>>> > Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to >> >>>>> Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate). >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> And what about their privacy? Do children have no Right to Privacy? >> >>>> >> >>>> From what age do children acquire the right to privacy? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Fatima >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> 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 >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> *Fatima Cambronero* >> >>>> Abogada-Argentina >> >>>> Directora de Investigaciones >> >>>> *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* >> >>>> http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> *@facambronero* >> >>>> >> >>>> *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* >> >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://www.timdavies.org.uk >> >>> 07834 856 303. >> >>> @timdavies >> >>> >> >>> Co-director of Practical Participation: >> >>> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >> >>> -------------------------- >> >>> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and >> Wales >> >>> - #5381958. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > >> >Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 12:16:21 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:16:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <1330189092.18461.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1330189092.18461.yint-ygo-j2me@web161004.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Imran actually. In this case, consider the two cases because it is and there will be observers that we can not ignore. It will specify that "while opting for inclusiveness, we accept the presence of observers who are adherent to the dynamic potential of the IGF". SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/25 Imran Ahmed Shah > > There are at least two types of the Remote Participants: > 1. Just Observers and Audience (will listen/ view or vote) > 2. Attendees (who are invited to attend meeting to complete the quorum) > like Members of Panel/ MAG/ Speakers/ Presenters. (Two-way) > > First Category at least require one way service. > > Second category must require both way communication and pre allocated time > slots for live and interactive discussion for active participation. > > Our report should be concise, short, to the point and as much > comprehensive to address all the points or concerns discussed among us. > > Thanks > > Imran > > ------------------------------On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 5:34 PM PKT Deirdre > Williams wrote:>We have to find a way to separate the RP issue from the > funding for>physical presence issue.>They are DIFFERENT issues.>We should > include acknowledgment of the RP work so far of the IGF>secretariat.>We > should point to the work of the RPWG>We could point to the anomaly in logic > of having meetings ABOUT the>Internet without using the Internet as much as > possible to extend the reach>of the meeting.>And we should try to do it all > in 300 words or less so that the main thrust>of our argument is unavoidably > clear. There was a very concise proposal>from the meetings last week.>Is > this a reasonable approach?>Deirdre>>On 25 February 2012 08:12, Imran Ahmed > Shah wrote:>>>>> Thanks Schombe for correction.>>>> > You are right, these efforts were not made to eliminate the F2F.>> I think > the sentence may be corrected as:>>>> ". . . to eliminate the dependency of > physical presence for a 'Face to>> Face' meeting by facilitating them . . > .">>>> Schombe I also agree and quoted that while advocating for the RP>> > functionality (operational and technical), the provision for the physical>> > participation as Face-to-Face meetings may not be eliminated. I also have>> > quoted earlier that the travel support funding may be affected if the RP > is>> supposed to the equal alternative for the F2F meetings.>>>> Thanks>>>> > Imran>> ------------------------------On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 3:48 PM PKT > Salanieta>> T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>Thanks Schombe.>On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 > at 10:46>> PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:> I suggest > replacing>> "eliminate" to "improve" to stay in a positive> dimension.>> > "Many>> people, working groups (as RPWG) and public and private > organizations> has>> worked extensively in the defense needs and > development capabilities of>>> law means and utilities to improve face to > face meeting by > facilitating>> them> through different applications, while the focus of > the meeting>> participants> can obtain the presence of remote participants > and / or>> individuals or> groups can connect face to face with the > participants in>> the meeting without> missing the meeting so that 'they > are not physically>> present at the> meeting".>>> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN>> > Téléphone mobile:>> +243998983491> email : > b.schombe at gmail.com> skype>> :>> b.schombe> blog > : http://akimambo.unblog.fr> Site>> Web : > www.ticafrica.net>>>>>> 2012/2/25 Baudouin>> SCHOMBE >>>> > 2012/2/25 Imran Ahmed Shah <>> ias_pk at yahoo.com>>> "Many of the > individuals, working groups (like>> RPWG) and public and>> private > organizations has worked a lot in>> advocating the requirements and>> > functionalities development of the right>> means and utilities to > eliminate>> the face to face meeting by>> facilitating them through > different>> applications, whereas the focal>> point of the meeting > participants may obtain>> the presence of the remote>> participants and/or > the individuals or groups may>> get connected with the>> face to face > meeting participants without missing the>> meeting while they>> are not > physically present in the meeting".>>> Is what we discussed to>> eliminate > face to face or are we looking for the> solution approaches to>> allow more > to participate in discussions>> on IGF from> their location?> I do not > agree on the part highlighted in>> yellow.>> Baudouin>>>>-- >Salanieta > Tamanikaiwaimaro aka>> Sala>Tweeter: > @SalanietaT>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro>Cell: +679>> 998 2851>>>>>>>-- > >“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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 25 12:17:32 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:47:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F4917AC.7010904@itforchange.net> On Thursday 23 February 2012 04:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > Sala, > > It’s not improper for the IGC to support nominees submitted by > other organisations, or positions advocated by other > organisations. The Nomcom is only responsible for submitting and > deciding on IGC nominees – I am not suggesting at all that we > change that or add additional names to IGC nominations. I agree > that would be improper. However I don’t see why we shouldn’t > express support for nominees of other organisations. > > Thanks Ian for the clarification. I respectfully have some > reservations and the issue is not APC but as a matter of principle. I > had advised APC when they asked about their application in December > that I was not aware of the Application as they had sent it to the > NomCom Chair. > > [ There is room in the future to set up systems to ensure that a > specific email address is especially set up to receive applications. > This will ensure that there are automatic responses to the > applications etc] On the other hand, I had asked for the Applications > that APC sent in December, 2011, I noted that it did not comply with > the specific instructions that were sent to the list. I cannot presume > to know how APC's application was treated, that is whether it was > rejected because it was not in the proper format or because it got > lost etc. This is something that the NomCom Chair will have to clarify. Since the nomcom report does not mention what happened, now what do we do? I request that the coordinatros ask the nomcom to specifically tell us in a report addendum what happened, failing which coordinators tell us what happened. Such an important and basic thing pertaining to the validity of the nomination process cannot remain a mystery. We would not for example allow a government election process in India to get away with it (well, how quite unthinkable, so much has the practice of democracy progressed), much less can we allow a civil society process to get away with it... We just must know what happened. You keep mentioning about some 'extra-ordinary situation', what was it? If you want you can share this information on a members only list, perhaps made just for this purpose, but the information must come out. parminder > Having said that, you will recall that when the initial list of > nominees were sent to me, I had to submit the names to the Secretariat > and noted that they were submitted to me and some applications were > not in the proper format. I then publicly advised candidates to comply > with the instructions. > > There are other variables arising out of extraordinary circumstances > that compound the issues. We do not have the best of circumstances but > are making the best of the situation. > > > > After the NomCom does concludes its work, we can then look at all the > lessons we can improve upon. > > The only reason we are discussing this at all is because of some > sort of administrative stuff up that I don’t understand yet. > > You are correct. There are some *othe*r considerations which I am > privy to. However you can trust that whilst we do not have an ideal > situation or set of circumstances (it is a very tight rope from an > administrative view), decisions are being made from the very narrow > options. > > I appreciate that the Nomcom has attempted to make amends at the > last moment but the simple fact is that due to some process issue > some very good names were not considered. > > There is no contention, in retrospect, the absence of very clear > procedural guidelines and "extraordinary circumstances" have led to > the situation that we are facing. This process issue can in the future > be improved with reforms of procedural guidelines to ensure that we do > not have a repeat. > > Those good names of civil society people have been forwarded > anyway. I think it is proper to indicate to the powers that be > that we are supportive of those names being considered in addition > to those IGC submitted, particularly in the circumstance where the > number of names submitted by IGC is less than the number of > vacancies that are out there to be filled. > > It is hoped that the NomCom will be able to send list of nominees that > meet the quota in any regard. The only issue with supporting a list of > names aside from those sent by the NomCom is to endanger the very list > that the IGC will submit which is the NomCom's decision. > > > Ian > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > > *Date: *Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 > *To: *Ian Peter > > *Cc: * >, Thomas Lowenhaupt > >, Valeria > Betancourt >, > >, > Jacqueline Morris >, shaila mistry > >, Anriette > Esterhuysen > > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application > > > Dear All, > > The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without > interference from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add > names must be their decision solely and this is to preserve some > level of independence. Once the NomCom makes the selection, the > recommendations are then put forward by the IGC through the > coordinators the Secretariat. In this case, one of the > Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself from dealing > with this administrative issue. > > For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list > of Nominees would be improper unless the APC list was within the > basket of nominees that they were considering and decide on their > own accord that they accept the candidates and list them with > other nominees. In this instance, APC has withdrawn its list of > candidates from the NomCom and the NomCom should only review the > list of candidates within its current basket. > > Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways > we can improve the processes etc. > > Kind Regards, > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > All, > > As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write > to the relevant UN authority and express that, in addition to > the names submitted, IGC is also supportive of the names > submitted by APC? I think most people on this list would > support such an action. > > (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we > need to learn from the issues that arose with this years > Nomcom and a few matters that need further clarification. But > for now, it would be good if IGC expressed support for the APC > nominees. That’s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and may be > our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) > > > Ian Peter > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *Thomas Lowenhaupt > > *Reply-To: * > >, Thomas Lowenhaupt > > > > > *Date: *Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 > *To: *Valeria Betancourt > > *Cc: *"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > >, > > >, Jacqueline Morris > > >, shaila mistry > > >, Anriette Esterhuysen > > >, > > > > *Subject: *[governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application > > > All, > > The NomCom has been discussing _adding APC names_ to the list > to be submitted, and _not subtracting_ those whom we had > already selected, agreeing this would be unkind and unfair. > > If this agreeable, let us know. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: > > > Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, > > > > > > > Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been > forwarded for the IGC NomCom for consideration, we would > like to express that while we regret that the NomCom did > not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first > phase of the process, we would rather not have the process > reopened as this is not fair to the current list of > nominees. We have submitted our names directly to the > Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its > procedures in the future. > > > > > Best, > > > > > Valeria > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 25 12:18:04 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:48:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report In-Reply-To: <4F4914D7.7060609@itforchange.net> References: <4F47E3F6.5020301@communisphere.com> <4F4914D7.7060609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F4917CC.4060406@itforchange.net> I am also deeply disappointed that, as Deirdre said in her email as the reason for withdrawal of her nomination, the impression went around that nominees should be able to fund their travel etc. Another IGC members tells me offline that she knows a few more people who did not apply becuase of the same impression. This is not acceptable on principle. Worse, I seem to know/ think that some nominated members themselves do not right now know where would they get their travel funding from if they indeed were selected and funds not available to fund them.... Parminder On Saturday 25 February 2012 10:35 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > Most of the comments that I offer below are something I would prefer > to do on a closed members only list, but since, for reasons which > remain unclear to me, we dont have one, I will have to do so here. > > First of all, I agree with what Avri said in an email - the MAG > nomination process this time around has been a disaster. Let's not > mince our words, since it is not a small issue. It involves basic > questions of IGC's legitimacy in the eyes of the world. We cant simply > let it pass by saying, ok, we learn lessons from everything in life. > Civil society's very standing and legitimacy depends on its conduct, > its processes, since we dont come to occupy the position we do with an > specific politically legitimising process - nothing other than what we > stand for and what we do. And this is legitimacy that needs to be > renewed daily, and it is lost much much faster than it can be built. > > The primary responsible for what happened must lie with the non voting > chair, who, it is good to be reminded, unlike other nomcom members is > not selected by lottery. S/he volunteers to take up the task. So, when > I read hints of non performance of crucial tasks by the nomcom chair, > I dont know what to make of it. And why in that case was the chair not > replaced by the coordinators. And I cannot at all understand what is > meant by statements like the following in the nomcom report. > > "....the participating members did not receive all communications > pertaining to the process." > > > We need to know more clearly what is meant by this. What > communication, and who was responsible for it. I understand part of it > was that the nomcom did not get a very large proportion of the names > to be considered. Who is responsible for this? What really happened? > What else did not get communicated? These are basic issues of > transparency and accountability, and we need to come completely clean > on it. This is not being good and nice to each other. This is about > our vision and values for democratic governance processes. We cannot > go around preaching them to others if we cannot uphold even basic > standards ourselves. > > I think another important factor responsible for what happened is that > that one of the co coordinator (the more experienced one ) was himself > a candidate and thus could not involve himself to looking into and > correcting the mess that was obviously developing. Coordinators, as > the elected IGC office bearers, are the primary custodians of IGC's > processes, and election offices for nomination processes. And this > role is very necessary and can be performed without getting involved > in the actual decisions about selection of the nominees. This has been > done in earlier times. It is the coordinators who have to keep a very > close watch at the process - and make themselves pro-actively > available at all times to the nomcom for process related issues. > > It has been a practice for long that co-coordinators do not stand for > being nominated by an IGC noncom, and there was of course good reason > for that. I think that we should go back to that practice, and if > needed include it in the charter. I can clearly see how Izumi could > not have taken any action nor given advice when things were obviously > not going fine, and also, how, if he was in the position to do so, it > is my judgement, that much could have been averted. > > Just the fact that the names of a large proportion of the nominees did > not actually get considered by nomcom - becuase apparently they did > not receive them - would make the outcome of the process infructuous > or invalid, though I dont want to labor this point. ( I believe that > though the process was almost fatally flawed, it is the collective > will of the IGC, including mine, the present set of nominees should > stay as the ones that are fully supported and forwarded by IGC.) > > I also think that the invitation for nomcom nominees was not > advertised enough, especially close to the deadline, which is when > most names pour in. Getting 10 nominees and selecting 7 of them does > not sound very good, and is unlikely to further our cause as a group > which claims to be the premier IG CS group, globally. And to advertise > well is both the duty of the nomcom chair and the coordinators. > > There were other oddities about the process - a list was put out as a > provisional list of selected people, of which I dont see any reason. > And then the nomcom report mentions this fact of putting out a > provisional list as the reason that they could not do any later > amendments etc. There simply seems to a lot of adhocism going around > about what has to be a very serious and responsible process. > > parminder > > > On Saturday 25 February 2012 01:53 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> Firstly, allow me to take the time to thank the NomCom for completing >> the task that was assigned to them. The work of the NomCom is not an >> easy one. They faced extraordinary circumstances that made their >> work challenging. >> >> Their cover letter and report is enclosed. I thank all those who took >> the time to apply and congratulate the Nominees and note the >> recommendation by the NomCom to support APC's list of candidates. For >> those that did not make the selection, I hope that you will please >> try again when it opens up again. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Thomas Lowenhaupt* > > >> Date: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:24 AM >> Subject: Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report >> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> > >, >> "nomcom at lists.igcaucus.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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 25 12:27:50 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:57:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <31D4A815-A3E7-4E54-B99F-7FE5182E2665@acm.org> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <31D4A815-A3E7-4E54-B99F-7FE5182E2665@acm.org> Message-ID: <4F491A16.6060200@itforchange.net> On Saturday 25 February 2012 07:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 25 Feb 2012, at 08:37, parminder wrote: > > >> (Also why this sentence - "We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation." What does this mean.) >> > We want them to not only support RP in principle, but put serious effort into making it happen? i.e. money? > > For the most part when it comes to things like this, CS can provide the so-called 'sweat equitiy', i.e the labor of the RPWG - those who dedicate nearly full time efforts to making it happen. Without proper expenditures and perhaps even regulations, e.g. about the constraints on streaming in some regions, no amount of effort on the part of the RPWG can fully succeed. > > So could it mean that: at this point CS is working essentially alone in this, except for some spotty industry support and we need governments and the private sector to join in partnership with CS to make this happen? > If that be the intention, the language should be something like - we, ie civil society, need 'more support from' (and not 'greater partnership between') the governments and private sector.... parminder > 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 pouzin at well.com Sat Feb 25 12:53:26 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:53:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A_Dea?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ling_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Really?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: **Michael, Your case is unfortunately not unique, a similar one was reported some months ago on this list. Google being what it is, there isn't any reason to expect basic change in this Kafkaian environment. Gmail is a permanent beta, and user assistance is as you said, a helpless gigantic flea market. If you want to use gmail as a central repository, you'd better make arrangements to remain reachable when your account is "temporarily disabled". That means, do not use a gmail address with your correspondents. An alternative is to have several other accounts on various systems, and set them up to redirect incoming mail to your gmail address. When it is disabled you can go and read+answer your mail from your other accounts. The US gov motto "leave the leadership to the private sector" is irresponsible when the private sector is one dominant company in a critical field. Gmail should be regulated, or like with tobacco it should warn users of potential disastrous effects. Good gluck. - - - On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 16:58, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Folks may be interested in my current experiences in the online world. > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-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 ella.com Sat Feb 25 12:57:22 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:57:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: <4F4917AC.7010904@itforchange.net> References: <4F4917AC.7010904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 On 25 Feb 2012, at 12:17, parminder wrote: > > > On Thursday 23 February 2012 04:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Sala, >> >> It’s not improper for the IGC to support nominees submitted by other organisations, or positions advocated by other organisations. The Nomcom is only responsible for submitting and deciding on IGC nominees – I am not suggesting at all that we change that or add additional names to IGC nominations. I agree that would be improper. However I don’t see why we shouldn’t express support for nominees of other organisations. >> >> Thanks Ian for the clarification. I respectfully have some reservations and the issue is not APC but as a matter of principle. I had advised APC when they asked about their application in December that I was not aware of the Application as they had sent it to the NomCom Chair. >> >> [ There is room in the future to set up systems to ensure that a specific email address is especially set up to receive applications. This will ensure that there are automatic responses to the applications etc] On the other hand, I had asked for the Applications that APC sent in December, 2011, I noted that it did not comply with the specific instructions that were sent to the list. I cannot presume to know how APC's application was treated, that is whether it was rejected because it was not in the proper format or because it got lost etc. This is something that the NomCom Chair will have to clarify. > > Since the nomcom report does not mention what happened, now what do we do? I request that the coordinatros ask the nomcom to specifically tell us in a report addendum what happened, failing which coordinators tell us what happened. Such an important and basic thing pertaining to the validity of the nomination process cannot remain a mystery. > > We would not for example allow a government election process in India to get away with it (well, how quite unthinkable, so much has the practice of democracy progressed), much less can we allow a civil society process to get away with it... We just must know what happened. You keep mentioning about some 'extra-ordinary situation', what was it? If you want you can share this information on a members only list, perhaps made just for this purpose, but the information must come out. > > parminder > > >> Having said that, you will recall that when the initial list of nominees were sent to me, I had to submit the names to the Secretariat and noted that they were submitted to me and some applications were not in the proper format. I then publicly advised candidates to comply with the instructions. >> >> There are other variables arising out of extraordinary circumstances that compound the issues. We do not have the best of circumstances but are making the best of the situation. >> >> >> >> After the NomCom does concludes its work, we can then look at all the lessons we can improve upon. >> >> The only reason we are discussing this at all is because of some sort of administrative stuff up that I don’t understand yet. >> You are correct. There are some other considerations which I am privy to. However you can trust that whilst we do not have an ideal situation or set of circumstances (it is a very tight rope from an administrative view), decisions are being made from the very narrow options. >> >> I appreciate that the Nomcom has attempted to make amends at the last moment but the simple fact is that due to some process issue some very good names were not considered. >> >> There is no contention, in retrospect, the absence of very clear procedural guidelines and "extraordinary circumstances" have led to the situation that we are facing. This process issue can in the future be improved with reforms of procedural guidelines to ensure that we do not have a repeat. >> >> Those good names of civil society people have been forwarded anyway. I think it is proper to indicate to the powers that be that we are supportive of those names being considered in addition to those IGC submitted, particularly in the circumstance where the number of names submitted by IGC is less than the number of vacancies that are out there to be filled. >> It is hoped that the NomCom will be able to send list of nominees that meet the quota in any regard. The only issue with supporting a list of names aside from those sent by the NomCom is to endanger the very list that the IGC will submit which is the NomCom's decision. >> >> Ian >> >> >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 >> To: Ian Peter >> Cc: , Thomas Lowenhaupt , Valeria Betancourt , , Jacqueline Morris , shaila mistry , Anriette Esterhuysen >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without interference from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add names must be their decision solely and this is to preserve some level of independence. Once the NomCom makes the selection, the recommendations are then put forward by the IGC through the coordinators the Secretariat. In this case, one of the Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself from dealing with this administrative issue. >> >> For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list of Nominees would be improper unless the APC list was within the basket of nominees that they were considering and decide on their own accord that they accept the candidates and list them with other nominees. In this instance, APC has withdrawn its list of candidates from the NomCom and the NomCom should only review the list of candidates within its current basket. >> >> Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways we can improve the processes etc. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> All, >> >> As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the relevant UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, IGC is also supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people on this list would support such an action. >> >> (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn from the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that need further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC expressed support for the APC nominees. That’s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and may be our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > >> Reply-To: >, Thomas Lowenhaupt > >> >> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 >> To: Valeria Betancourt > >> Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >, >, Jacqueline Morris >, shaila mistry >, Anriette Esterhuysen >, > >> >> Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application >> >> >> All, >> >> The NomCom has been discussing adding APC names to the list to be submitted, and not subtracting those whom we had already selected, agreeing this would be unkind and unfair. >> >> If this agreeable, let us know. >> >> Best, >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >> >> Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret that the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first phase of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened as this is not fair to the current list of nominees. We have submitted our names directly to the Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its procedures in the future. >> >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> Valeria >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 14:02:47 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:02:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report In-Reply-To: <4F4917CC.4060406@itforchange.net> References: <4F47E3F6.5020301@communisphere.com> <4F4914D7.7060609@itforchange.net> <4F4917CC.4060406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Since the response to my email seemed to be that I had been mistaken about the funding issue I submitted a self nomination to the committee when the "second call" was announced. 41 of the 300 words of my" brief relevant biography" read "Having spent the last week fighting for the future of remote participation, I feel that it should be possible for me to make the necessary inputs to the MAG meetings even if it is not possible to obtain funding for travel." I am in full support of the NomCom's sticking with its initial list. However I do feel that the funding issue needs to be clarified, and that the whole process of the NomCom should in fact be reviewed. Deirdre On 25 February 2012 13:18, parminder wrote: > ** > I am also deeply disappointed that, as Deirdre said in her email as the > reason for withdrawal of her nomination, the impression went around that > nominees should be able to fund their travel etc. Another IGC members tells > me offline that she knows a few more people who did not apply becuase of > the same impression. This is not acceptable on principle. > Worse, I seem to know/ think that some nominated members themselves do not > right now know where would they get their travel funding from if they > indeed were selected and funds not available to fund them.... > > Parminder > > > On Saturday 25 February 2012 10:35 PM, parminder wrote: > > Dear All > > Most of the comments that I offer below are something I would prefer to do > on a closed members only list, but since, for reasons which remain unclear > to me, we dont have one, I will have to do so here. > > First of all, I agree with what Avri said in an email - the MAG nomination > process this time around has been a disaster. Let's not mince our words, > since it is not a small issue. It involves basic questions of IGC's > legitimacy in the eyes of the world. We cant simply let it pass by saying, > ok, we learn lessons from everything in life. Civil society's very standing > and legitimacy depends on its conduct, its processes, since we dont come to > occupy the position we do with an specific politically legitimising process > - nothing other than what we stand for and what we do. And this is > legitimacy that needs to be renewed daily, and it is lost much much faster > than it can be built. > > The primary responsible for what happened must lie with the non voting > chair, who, it is good to be reminded, unlike other nomcom members is not > selected by lottery. S/he volunteers to take up the task. So, when I read > hints of non performance of crucial tasks by the nomcom chair, I dont know > what to make of it. And why in that case was the chair not replaced by the > coordinators. And I cannot at all understand what is meant by statements > like the following in the nomcom report. > > "....the participating members did not receive all communications > pertaining to the process." > > > We need to know more clearly what is meant by this. What communication, > and who was responsible for it. I understand part of it was that the nomcom > did not get a very large proportion of the names to be considered. Who is > responsible for this? What really happened? What else did not get > communicated? These are basic issues of transparency and accountability, > and we need to come completely clean on it. This is not being good and nice > to each other. This is about our vision and values for democratic > governance processes. We cannot go around preaching them to others if we > cannot uphold even basic standards ourselves. > > I think another important factor responsible for what happened is that > that one of the co coordinator (the more experienced one ) was himself a > candidate and thus could not involve himself to looking into and correcting > the mess that was obviously developing. Coordinators, as the elected IGC > office bearers, are the primary custodians of IGC's processes, and election > offices for nomination processes. And this role is very necessary and can > be performed without getting involved in the actual decisions about > selection of the nominees. This has been done in earlier times. It is the > coordinators who have to keep a very close watch at the process - and make > themselves pro-actively available at all times to the nomcom for process > related issues. > > It has been a practice for long that co-coordinators do not stand for > being nominated by an IGC noncom, and there was of course good reason for > that. I think that we should go back to that practice, and if needed > include it in the charter. I can clearly see how Izumi could not have taken > any action nor given advice when things were obviously not going fine, and > also, how, if he was in the position to do so, it is my judgement, that > much could have been averted. > > Just the fact that the names of a large proportion of the nominees did not > actually get considered by nomcom - becuase apparently they did not > receive them - would make the outcome of the process infructuous or > invalid, though I dont want to labor this point. ( I believe that though > the process was almost fatally flawed, it is the collective will of the > IGC, including mine, the present set of nominees should stay as the ones > that are fully supported and forwarded by IGC.) > > I also think that the invitation for nomcom nominees was not advertised > enough, especially close to the deadline, which is when most names pour in. > Getting 10 nominees and selecting 7 of them does not sound very good, and > is unlikely to further our cause as a group which claims to be the premier > IG CS group, globally. And to advertise well is both the duty of the nomcom > chair and the coordinators. > > There were other oddities about the process - a list was put out as a > provisional list of selected people, of which I dont see any reason. And > then the nomcom report mentions this fact of putting out a provisional list > as the reason that they could not do any later amendments etc. There simply > seems to a lot of adhocism going around about what has to be a very serious > and responsible process. > > parminder > > > On Saturday 25 February 2012 01:53 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Firstly, allow me to take the time to thank the NomCom for completing the > task that was assigned to them. The work of the NomCom is not an easy one. > They faced extraordinary circumstances that made their work challenging. > > Their cover letter and report is enclosed. I thank all those who took the > time to apply and congratulate the Nominees and note the recommendation by > the NomCom to support APC's list of candidates. For those that did not make > the selection, I hope that you will please try again when it opens up again. > > Kind Regards, > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > Date: Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 7:24 AM > Subject: Final CSIGC Nominating Committee Cover Letter and Report > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , > "nomcom at lists.igcaucus.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 > > -- “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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 19:24:56 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 05:24:56 +0500 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <4F491A16.6060200@itforchange.net> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <31D4A815-A3E7-4E54-B99F-7FE5182E2665@acm.org> <4F491A16.6060200@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 Parminder -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:27 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 25 February 2012 07:38 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 25 Feb 2012, at 08:37, parminder wrote: > > > > (Also why this sentence - "We also encourage greater partnership between the > governments and private sector in enhancing remote participation." What does > this mean.) > > > We want them to not only support RP in principle, but put serious effort > into making it happen? i.e. money? > > For the most part when it comes to things like this, CS can provide the > so-called 'sweat equitiy', i.e the labor of the RPWG - those who dedicate > nearly full time efforts to making it happen. Without proper expenditures > and perhaps even regulations, e.g. about the constraints on streaming in > some regions, no amount of effort on the part of the RPWG can fully succeed. > > So could it mean that: at this point CS is working essentially alone in > this, except for some spotty industry support and we need governments and > the private sector to join in partnership with CS to make this happen? > > > > If that be the intention, the language should be something like - we, ie > civil society, need 'more support from' (and not 'greater partnership > between') the governments and private sector.... > > parminder > > > 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Sat Feb 25 20:52:08 2012 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 07:22:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] The UN Threat to Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: References: <8498B74D07C74CA99C6C4677F50804B7@PortableRenateBloem> Message-ID: A comment on the article earlier posted by Renate, further shedding some very interesting light on Mr. McDowell's agenda: FCC first FUD at the idea of a UN-controlled Internet http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119481-fcc-fires-fud-at-the-idea-of-a-un-controlled-internet Best, Anja On 23 February 2012 14:40, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 17:17, Renate Bloem (Gmail) < > renate.bloem at gmail.com> wrote: > *The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom > * > > *By Robert M. McDowell, commissioner of the Federal Communications > Commission* > The Wall Street Journal - 21 February 2012 > > - - - > > We heard that hackneyed slogan quite a few times since 2003. > It is typically sung by some republican representative, the party pushing > SOPA, PIPA, ACTA. > Double tongue as usual. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._McDowell > > Robert M. McDowell was first appointed to a seat on the Federal > Communications Commission by U.S. President George W. Bush and unanimously > confirmed by the Senate in 2006. > > Commissioner McDowell has been an outspoken critic of net neutrality > rules, casting a dissenting vote based on four primary concerns: 1) Nothing > is broken in the Internet access market that needs fixing; 2) The FCC does > not have the legal authority to issue net neutrality rules; 3) The rules > are likely to cause irreparable harm; and 4) Existing law and Internet > governance structures provide ample consumer protection in the event a > systemic market failure occurs. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 25 23:46:27 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 13:46:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: References: <4F4917AC.7010904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Just came back from Geneva Friday night. I will discuss this matter with Sala asap (likely tomorrow) and report to the list. Thank you for a little patience. izumi 2012/2/26 Avri Doria : > +1 > > On 25 Feb 2012, at 12:17, parminder wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday 23 February 2012 04:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Sala, >>> >>> It’s not improper for the IGC to support nominees submitted by other organisations, or positions advocated by other organisations. The Nomcom is only responsible for submitting and deciding on IGC nominees – I am not suggesting at all that we change that or add additional names to IGC nominations. I agree that would be improper. However I don’t see why we shouldn’t express support for nominees of other organisations. >>> >>>  Thanks Ian for the clarification. I respectfully have some reservations and the issue is not APC but as a matter of principle. I had advised APC when they asked about their application in December that I was not aware of the Application as they had sent it to the NomCom Chair. >>> >>> [ There is room in the future to set up systems to ensure that a specific email address is especially set up to receive applications. This will ensure that there are automatic responses to the applications etc] On the other hand, I had asked for the Applications that APC sent in December, 2011, I noted that it did not comply with the specific instructions that were sent to the list. I cannot presume to know how APC's application was treated, that is whether it was rejected because it was not in the proper format or because it got lost etc. This is something that the NomCom Chair will have to clarify. >> >> Since the nomcom report does not mention what happened, now what do we do? I request that the coordinatros ask the nomcom to specifically tell us in a report addendum what happened, failing which coordinators tell us what happened. Such an important and basic thing pertaining to the validity of the nomination process cannot remain a mystery. >> >> We would not for example allow a government election process in India to get away with it (well, how quite unthinkable, so much has the practice of democracy progressed), much less  can we allow a civil society process to get away with it... We just must know what happened. You keep mentioning about some 'extra-ordinary situation', what was it? If you want you can share this information on a members only list, perhaps made just for this purpose, but the information must come out. >> >> parminder >> >> >>> Having said that, you will recall that when the initial list of nominees were sent to me, I had to submit the names to the Secretariat and noted that they were submitted to me and some applications were not in the proper format. I then publicly advised candidates to comply with the instructions. >>> >>> There are other variables arising out of extraordinary circumstances that compound the issues. We do not have the best of circumstances but are making the best of the situation. >>> >>> >>> >>> After the NomCom does concludes its work, we can then look at all the lessons we can improve upon. >>> >>> The only reason we are discussing this at all is because of some sort of administrative stuff up that I don’t understand yet. >>> You are correct. There are some other considerations which I am privy to. However you can trust that whilst we do not have an ideal situation or set of circumstances (it is a very tight rope from an administrative view), decisions are being made from the very narrow options. >>> >>> I appreciate that the Nomcom has attempted to make amends at the last moment but the simple fact is that due to some process issue some very good names were not considered. >>> >>> There is no contention, in retrospect,  the absence of very clear procedural guidelines and "extraordinary circumstances" have led to the situation that we are facing. This process issue can in the future be improved with reforms of procedural guidelines to ensure that we do not have a repeat. >>> >>> Those good names of civil society people have been forwarded anyway. I think it is proper to indicate to the powers that be that we are supportive of those names being considered in addition to those IGC submitted, particularly in the circumstance where the number of names submitted by IGC is less than the number of vacancies that are out there to be filled. >>> It is hoped that the NomCom will be able to send list of nominees that meet the quota in any regard. The only issue with supporting a list of names aside from those sent by the NomCom is to endanger the very list that the IGC will submit which is the NomCom's decision. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 >>> To: Ian Peter >>> Cc: , Thomas Lowenhaupt , Valeria Betancourt , , Jacqueline Morris , shaila mistry , Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without interference from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add names must be their decision solely and this is to preserve some level of independence. Once the NomCom makes the selection, the recommendations are then put forward by the IGC through the coordinators the Secretariat. In this case, one of the Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself from dealing with this administrative issue. >>> >>> For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list of Nominees would be improper unless the APC list was within the basket of nominees that they were considering and decide on their own accord that they accept the candidates and list them with other nominees. In this instance, APC has withdrawn its list of candidates from the NomCom and the NomCom should only review the list of candidates within its current basket. >>> >>> Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways we can improve the processes etc. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the relevant UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, IGC is also supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people on this list would support such an action. >>> >>> (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn from the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that need further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC expressed support for the APC nominees. That’s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and may be our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > >>> Reply-To: >, Thomas Lowenhaupt > >>> >>> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 >>> To: Valeria Betancourt > >>> Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >, >, Jacqueline Morris >, shaila mistry >, Anriette Esterhuysen >, > >>> >>> Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application >>> >>> >>>    All, >>> >>>  The NomCom has been discussing adding APC names to the list to be submitted, and not subtracting those whom we had already selected, agreeing this would be unkind and unfair. >>> >>>  If this agreeable, let us know. >>> >>>  Best, >>> >>>  Tom Lowenhaupt >>> >>>  On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret that the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first phase of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened as this is not fair to the current list of nominees.  We have submitted our names directly to the Secretariat.  We do hope that the IGC can clarify its procedures in the future. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Valeria >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Feb 26 00:41:09 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:11:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F49C5F5.5090407@itforchange.net> Dear Sala Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's nomination to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur) that, although there have been numerous procedural problems with this nomcom process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee. The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power - whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of the appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this instance. All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new ones. Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, till they are replaced by a new set. And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, till a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical need and importance should be obvious. In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is wrong. And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no appeals committee. An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to be.... I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. parminder On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Imran, > > Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the > MAG NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, > kindly find the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd > February, 2012. > > Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 01:30:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: <4F49C5F5.5090407@itforchange.net> References: <4F49C5F5.5090407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter. The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision must be aligned to the Charter. The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when they were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only the NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that were specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the Charter, there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal Team. On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom to , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. When I said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had to factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so if that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be possibilities of "conflict:. Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew" the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the reefs.] This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and procedures prescribed in the Charter. Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put to the list. My comments are inline: On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder wrote: > ** > Dear Sala > > Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's > nomination to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I > concur) that, although there have been numerous procedural problems with > this nomcom process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. > > However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes > off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee. > Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have no power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are many lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above. > The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an > authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power- whether deliberate or inadvertent -is one of the most important task of the appeal's committee. Almost sounds > like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this instance. > > If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated. > All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new > ones. Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, > till they are replaced by a new set. > Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have been the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. We were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each time I had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead and some decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did say that with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope. > And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, > till a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical > need and importance should be obvious. > The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list] > In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is > wrong. > The decision was based on the Charter. > And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no > appeals committee. > I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is it not? > > An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated > and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to > be.... > > This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter that I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review current procedures and guidelines. > I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. > You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team which the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have attacked. Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had recused himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if it is the will of the list. > In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators > should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. > That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My recommendations are to review the Charter. Respectfully, parminder > On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear Imran, > > Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG > NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly > find the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, > 2012. > > Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 02:08:50 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 07:08:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] The UN Threat to Internet Freedom In-Reply-To: References: <8498B74D07C74CA99C6C4677F50804B7@PortableRenateBloem> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > A comment on the article earlier posted by Renate, further shedding some > very interesting light on Mr. McDowell's agenda: > > FCC first FUD at the idea of a UN-controlled Internet > > http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119481-fcc-fires-fud-at-the-idea-of-a-un-controlled-internet Seems to me the author doesn't truly understand how peering and transit relationships work. "Under the current unregulated peering system, foreign ISPs pay US ISPs a fee to carry internet traffic, which means US companies make a tidy sum of cash off foreign access." for example is incorrect. ISPs pay their upstream (transit) providers, these may or may not be located in the USA. They also peer to reduce their transit costs. Many transit providers are located outside the US and are not US companies. For example, my ISP in Kenya is connected to other Kenyan ISPs via the local IXP and to an Indian transit provider (TATA and a European provider (OpenTransit France Telecom). -- 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 Sun Feb 26 07:16:47 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:16:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] [nomcom] Re: APC's Application In-Reply-To: References: <4F4917AC.7010904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4F4A22AF.20408@cafonso.ca> Thx for this, Izumi. frt rgds --c.a. On 02/26/2012 01:46 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear all, > > Just came back from Geneva Friday night. > I will discuss this matter with Sala asap (likely tomorrow) and report > to the list. > > Thank you for a little patience. > > izumi > > > 2012/2/26 Avri Doria : >> +1 >> >> On 25 Feb 2012, at 12:17, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 23 February 2012 04:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> Sala, >>>> >>>> It’s not improper for the IGC to support nominees submitted by other organisations, or positions advocated by other organisations. The Nomcom is only responsible for submitting and deciding on IGC nominees – I am not suggesting at all that we change that or add additional names to IGC nominations. I agree that would be improper. However I don’t see why we shouldn’t express support for nominees of other organisations. >>>> >>>> Thanks Ian for the clarification. I respectfully have some reservations and the issue is not APC but as a matter of principle. I had advised APC when they asked about their application in December that I was not aware of the Application as they had sent it to the NomCom Chair. >>>> >>>> [ There is room in the future to set up systems to ensure that a specific email address is especially set up to receive applications. This will ensure that there are automatic responses to the applications etc] On the other hand, I had asked for the Applications that APC sent in December, 2011, I noted that it did not comply with the specific instructions that were sent to the list. I cannot presume to know how APC's application was treated, that is whether it was rejected because it was not in the proper format or because it got lost etc. This is something that the NomCom Chair will have to clarify. >>> >>> Since the nomcom report does not mention what happened, now what do we do? I request that the coordinatros ask the nomcom to specifically tell us in a report addendum what happened, failing which coordinators tell us what happened. Such an important and basic thing pertaining to the validity of the nomination process cannot remain a mystery. >>> >>> We would not for example allow a government election process in India to get away with it (well, how quite unthinkable, so much has the practice of democracy progressed), much less can we allow a civil society process to get away with it... We just must know what happened. You keep mentioning about some 'extra-ordinary situation', what was it? If you want you can share this information on a members only list, perhaps made just for this purpose, but the information must come out. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>>> Having said that, you will recall that when the initial list of nominees were sent to me, I had to submit the names to the Secretariat and noted that they were submitted to me and some applications were not in the proper format. I then publicly advised candidates to comply with the instructions. >>>> >>>> There are other variables arising out of extraordinary circumstances that compound the issues. We do not have the best of circumstances but are making the best of the situation. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> After the NomCom does concludes its work, we can then look at all the lessons we can improve upon. >>>> >>>> The only reason we are discussing this at all is because of some sort of administrative stuff up that I don’t understand yet. >>>> You are correct. There are some other considerations which I am privy to. However you can trust that whilst we do not have an ideal situation or set of circumstances (it is a very tight rope from an administrative view), decisions are being made from the very narrow options. >>>> >>>> I appreciate that the Nomcom has attempted to make amends at the last moment but the simple fact is that due to some process issue some very good names were not considered. >>>> >>>> There is no contention, in retrospect, the absence of very clear procedural guidelines and "extraordinary circumstances" have led to the situation that we are facing. This process issue can in the future be improved with reforms of procedural guidelines to ensure that we do not have a repeat. >>>> >>>> Those good names of civil society people have been forwarded anyway. I think it is proper to indicate to the powers that be that we are supportive of those names being considered in addition to those IGC submitted, particularly in the circumstance where the number of names submitted by IGC is less than the number of vacancies that are out there to be filled. >>>> It is hoped that the NomCom will be able to send list of nominees that meet the quota in any regard. The only issue with supporting a list of names aside from those sent by the NomCom is to endanger the very list that the IGC will submit which is the NomCom's decision. >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> >>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:11:43 +1200 >>>> To: Ian Peter >>>> Cc: , Thomas Lowenhaupt , Valeria Betancourt , , Jacqueline Morris , shaila mistry , Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> The selection is purely something for the NomCom to do without interference from any of us. Hence the decision to review or add names must be their decision solely and this is to preserve some level of independence. Once the NomCom makes the selection, the recommendations are then put forward by the IGC through the coordinators the Secretariat. In this case, one of the Coordinators is a nominee nad has recused himself from dealing with this administrative issue. >>>> >>>> For the IGC to indicate to the Secretariat support of APC's list of Nominees would be improper unless the APC list was within the basket of nominees that they were considering and decide on their own accord that they accept the candidates and list them with other nominees. In this instance, APC has withdrawn its list of candidates from the NomCom and the NomCom should only review the list of candidates within its current basket. >>>> >>>> Yes I agree that when the air is clearer, we can then discuss ways we can improve the processes etc. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> All, >>>> >>>> As a quick way to deal with this, can the coordinators write to the relevant UN authority and express that, in addition to the names submitted, IGC is also supportive of the names submitted by APC? I think most people on this list would support such an action. >>>> >>>> (When the air is clearer I think there are a few things we need to learn from the issues that arose with this years Nomcom and a few matters that need further clarification. But for now, it would be good if IGC expressed support for the APC nominees. That’s an IGC decision, not a Nomcom one, and may be our easiest path forward in the circumstances.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Thomas Lowenhaupt > >>>> Reply-To: >, Thomas Lowenhaupt > >>>> >>>> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:41:52 -0500 >>>> To: Valeria Betancourt > >>>> Cc: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >, >, Jacqueline Morris >, shaila mistry >, Anriette Esterhuysen >, > >>>> >>>> Subject: [governance] Re: [nomcom] Re: APC's Application >>>> >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> The NomCom has been discussing adding APC names to the list to be submitted, and not subtracting those whom we had already selected, agreeing this would be unkind and unfair. >>>> >>>> If this agreeable, let us know. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Tom Lowenhaupt >>>> >>>> On 2/22/2012 10:28 AM, Valeria Betancourt wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Sala and members of the IGC NomCom, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Given that APC's nominations for the MAG has been forwarded for the IGC NomCom for consideration, we would like to express that while we regret that the NomCom did not consider the names submitted by the APC in the first phase of the process, we would rather not have the process reopened as this is not fair to the current list of nominees. We have submitted our names directly to the Secretariat. We do hope that the IGC can clarify its procedures in the future. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Valeria >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Feb 26 08:59:26 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:59:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 - CIR? Message-ID: <4F4A3ABE.3090208@cafonso.ca> Dear people, The February synthesis paper of the open consultations published in the IGF official site mentions the following regarding "critical Internet resources": --- begin doc citation --- 25. In terms of Critical Internet Resources it was seen by several commentators that further debate is needed around issues such as the institutional structure of IG, including the future of ICANN, IP addressing, root servers and Internet exchange points. 26. Several suggestions were made for the Critical Internet Issues theme, including, inter alia; • Best Practices for eliminating barriers to access to the Internet; • IPv6 and the impact and opportunities for the developing world that may result from the transition to IPv6 and how does the coming depletion of IPv4 addresses affect developing countries? • What is the effect of the deployment of multilingual domain names, i.e. IDN.IDN? • Issues of ICANN's naming policy and the impact of the new gTLDs and IDN gTLDs; • Technical issues such as DNS blocking and how such technical issues drive or impact policy. --- end doc citation --- In light of the ongoing ITU process leading to WCIT 2012 aiming at, among other goals, radically revising the 1988 ITR to try to take account of the ICT challenges posed by the Internet, I think the above points are far from sufficient. At a minimum, IGF's CIR "track" should include a review of the ITU meetings' outcomes. 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Feb 26 10:09:49 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:09:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement re UN Human Rights Council Message-ID: Below is a brief statement on "Human Rights on the Internet". I have to go offline for two and a half hours but then will be back online in case anyone has comments, questions or additions to the text below. At that point I would hope to make some changes if any are suggested, then have it posted for comment. In general, I didn't like the title "Human Rights on the Internet" because it makes as little sense to me as raising the question of human rights on the mountains or in the valleys, or on the oceans, etc. Human rights exist everywhere, including the internet. The question is the constant need to keep awareness of them high *Human Rights on the Internet * Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without borders. The open architecture of the Internet facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology and design choices simultaneously extends human interaction in multiple directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously imaginable. This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for all, without the prominent downsides often associated with actual some implementations of government and religion. If the Internet, as a network of networks, is a great force for human flourishing, and if humans have the inborn desire to flourish under conditions of self-determination, the most powerful question to ask concerning rights on the Internet is not so much where these rights arise from, or how they may be further enforced in ancient courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises from, and how such a right of interference can be legitimately asserted and enforced. Given that the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate behaviors often called rights and freedoms, and given that the Internet as a whole is owner-less and international, how can any business, government, or person both obtain a right to interfere with the freedom of the Internet, and also legitimately enforce that right? In this light, any lack of clarity deemed to exist by some regarding where human rights “come from” pales in comparison to the difficulties of coherently positing and persuading others of a right to interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet. To the extent such interference becomes known publicly, it will be highly likely to suffer the same fate as SOPA and PIPA legislation recently did, because any such right to interfere with inherent human rights and freedom is far more difficult to successfully theorize and explain than the human rights we all want for ourselves, but may or may not extend to all others equally. Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting in ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, etc.) Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc., should be met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single country. In the general context of market freedom, the development of new technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and others who are creating the Internet in real time. The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. Therefore, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGF condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever they may occur, and the IGF calls upon the United Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can maximize for all the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human experience, making ever more real the human flourishing that is both the reality and the promise of the 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Feb 26 11:20:00 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:20:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement re UN Human Rights Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think we can speak for the entire IGF. I think it can be cut down by about 50%. We don't need to reference evangelists or the SOPA/PIPA bills for example. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On 2/26/12, Paul Lehto wrote: > Below is a brief statement on "Human Rights on the Internet". I have to go > offline for two and a half hours but then will be back online in case > anyone has comments, questions or additions to the text below. At that > point I would hope to make some changes if any are suggested, then have it > posted for comment. In general, I didn't like the title "Human Rights on > the Internet" because it makes as little sense to me as raising the > question of human rights on the mountains or in the valleys, or on the > oceans, etc. Human rights exist everywhere, including the internet. The > question is the constant need to keep awareness of them high > > *Human Rights on the Internet * > > Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their > technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without > borders. > > The open architecture of the Internet facilitates and enhances many > pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free > expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly, > creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to the > culture of society. Internet technology and design choices simultaneously > extends human interaction in multiple directions regardless of borders, at > a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously imaginable. > > This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the > Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the > Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by > already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought > leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as > “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have > caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining > democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for > all, without the prominent downsides often associated with actual some > implementations of government and religion. > > If the Internet, as a network of networks, is a great force for human > flourishing, and if humans have the inborn desire to flourish under > conditions of self-determination, the most powerful question to ask > concerning rights on the Internet is not so much where these rights arise > from, or how they may be further enforced in ancient courts, but where any > claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises from, > and how such a right of interference can be legitimately asserted and > enforced. Given that the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate > behaviors often called rights and freedoms, and given that the Internet as > a whole is owner-less and international, how can any business, government, > or person both obtain a right to interfere with the freedom of the > Internet, and also legitimately enforce that right? In this light, any > lack of clarity deemed to exist by some regarding where human rights “come > from” pales in comparison to the difficulties of coherently positing and > persuading others of a right to interfere with the freedom of others on the > Internet. To the extent such interference becomes known publicly, it will > be highly likely to suffer the same fate as SOPA and PIPA legislation > recently did, because any such right to interfere with inherent human > rights and freedom is far more difficult to successfully theorize and > explain than the human rights we all want for ourselves, but may or may not > extend to all others equally. > > Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered > with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including > businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, > administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more > choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the > Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the > Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much > “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless > of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is > extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting in > ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully > understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public > interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair > or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim > that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or > otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a > business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor > content, etc.) > > Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of > host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights > laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that > domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc., should be > met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single > country. > > In the general context of market freedom, the development of new > technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their > regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of > regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities > without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the > countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion > on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. > This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and > others who are creating the Internet in real time. > > The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education > concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the > context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions > regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet > engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is > impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct > effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place > in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers > making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of > human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to > preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human > rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be > decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of > potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized > ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. > > Therefore, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) declares that the Internet > is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human > freedoms and equality, the IGF condemns violations of human rights on the > Internet and wherever they may occur, and the IGF calls upon the United > Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education about > human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users of the > Internet can maximize for all the value of the Internet as an enhancement > of the human experience, making ever more real the human flourishing that > is both the reality and the promise of the Internet. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Feb 26 11:34:25 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:34:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 - CIR? In-Reply-To: <4F4A3ABE.3090208@cafonso.ca> References: <4F4A3ABE.3090208@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: +1 Rgds, Tracy On Feb 26, 2012 10:01 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Dear people, > > The February synthesis paper of the open consultations published in the > IGF official site mentions the following regarding "critical Internet > resources": > > --- begin doc citation --- > > 25. In terms of Critical Internet Resources it was seen by several > commentators that further debate is needed around issues such as the > institutional structure of IG, including the future of ICANN, IP > addressing, root servers and Internet exchange points. > > 26. Several suggestions were made for the Critical Internet Issues > theme, including, inter alia; > > • Best Practices for eliminating barriers to access to the Internet; > > • IPv6 and the impact and opportunities for the developing world that > may result from the transition to IPv6 and how does the coming depletion > of IPv4 addresses affect developing countries? > > • What is the effect of the deployment of multilingual domain names, > i.e. IDN.IDN? > > • Issues of ICANN's naming policy and the impact of the new gTLDs and > IDN gTLDs; > > • Technical issues such as DNS blocking and how such technical issues > drive or impact policy. > > --- end doc citation --- > > In light of the ongoing ITU process leading to WCIT 2012 aiming at, > among other goals, radically revising the 1988 ITR to try to take > account of the ICT challenges posed by the Internet, I think the above > points are far from sufficient. > > At a minimum, IGF's CIR "track" should include a review of the ITU > meetings' outcomes. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Feb 26 12:11:30 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:11:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 - CIR? In-Reply-To: <4F4A3ABE.3090208@cafonso.ca> References: <4F4A3ABE.3090208@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4F4A67C2.5090201@apc.org> Dear c.a. I agree with you strongly on this. But keep in mind that this synthesis paper only covers the Open Consultation. At the MAG meeting sessions were discussed in far more detail, and I think that Bill Drake might have mentioned WCIT 2012 as being very important. Best Anriette On 26/02/12 15:59, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear people, > > The February synthesis paper of the open consultations published in the > IGF official site mentions the following regarding "critical Internet > resources": > > --- begin doc citation --- > > 25. In terms of Critical Internet Resources it was seen by several > commentators that further debate is needed around issues such as the > institutional structure of IG, including the future of ICANN, IP > addressing, root servers and Internet exchange points. > > 26. Several suggestions were made for the Critical Internet Issues > theme, including, inter alia; > > • Best Practices for eliminating barriers to access to the Internet; > > • IPv6 and the impact and opportunities for the developing world that > may result from the transition to IPv6 and how does the coming depletion > of IPv4 addresses affect developing countries? > > • What is the effect of the deployment of multilingual domain names, > i.e. IDN.IDN? > > • Issues of ICANN's naming policy and the impact of the new gTLDs and > IDN gTLDs; > > • Technical issues such as DNS blocking and how such technical issues > drive or impact policy. > > --- end doc citation --- > > In light of the ongoing ITU process leading to WCIT 2012 aiming at, > among other goals, radically revising the 1988 ITR to try to take > account of the ICT challenges posed by the Internet, I think the above > points are far from sufficient. > > At a minimum, IGF's CIR "track" should include a review of the ITU > meetings' outcomes. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 14:30:09 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:30:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 - CIR? In-Reply-To: <4F4A67C2.5090201@apc.org> References: <4F4A3ABE.3090208@cafonso.ca> <4F4A67C2.5090201@apc.org> Message-ID: <90B15C99-45BF-413F-9564-2AFBA6F9E1C3@cafonso.ca> Good to know! frt rgds --c.a. sent from a dumbphone On 26/02/2012, at 14:11, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear c.a. > > I agree with you strongly on this. But keep in mind that this synthesis > paper only covers the Open Consultation. > > At the MAG meeting sessions were discussed in far more detail, and I > think that Bill Drake might have mentioned WCIT 2012 as being very > important. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > On 26/02/12 15:59, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Dear people, >> >> The February synthesis paper of the open consultations published in the >> IGF official site mentions the following regarding "critical Internet >> resources": >> >> --- begin doc citation --- >> >> 25. In terms of Critical Internet Resources it was seen by several >> commentators that further debate is needed around issues such as the >> institutional structure of IG, including the future of ICANN, IP >> addressing, root servers and Internet exchange points. >> >> 26. Several suggestions were made for the Critical Internet Issues >> theme, including, inter alia; >> >> • Best Practices for eliminating barriers to access to the Internet; >> >> • IPv6 and the impact and opportunities for the developing world that >> may result from the transition to IPv6 and how does the coming depletion >> of IPv4 addresses affect developing countries? >> >> • What is the effect of the deployment of multilingual domain names, >> i.e. IDN.IDN? >> >> • Issues of ICANN's naming policy and the impact of the new gTLDs and >> IDN gTLDs; >> >> • Technical issues such as DNS blocking and how such technical issues >> drive or impact policy. >> >> --- end doc citation --- >> >> In light of the ongoing ITU process leading to WCIT 2012 aiming at, >> among other goals, radically revising the 1988 ITR to try to take >> account of the ICT challenges posed by the Internet, I think the above >> points are far from sufficient. >> >> At a minimum, IGF's CIR "track" should include a review of the ITU >> meetings' outcomes. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 26 14:53:42 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 06:53:42 +1100 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: Message-ID: To me the key is this ­ should a member of the Appeals Team, whose term of commitment for one year has expired, be allowed to stand for other office? To me the answer is clearly yes. The only proviso would be that they then stand down from Appeals Team if selected. As I understand it Fouad is quite willing to do this if he has not done so already. So I have no problem at all with the decision, and I note Parminder is not against the decision either. I think Sala¹s decision was completely right and will leave interpretation of the Charter to others. Ian From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200 To: , parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination Dear Parminder,   Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter.   To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter. The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision must be aligned to the Charter.   The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when they were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only the NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team.   Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that were specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the Charter, there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal Team.   On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom to , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. When I said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had to factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so if that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be possibilities of "conflict:.   Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew" the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the reefs.]   This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom.   In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and procedures prescribed in the Charter.   Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put to the list.   My comments are inline: On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear Sala > > Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's nomination > to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur)  that, although > there have been numerous procedural problems with this nomcom process, it > would not want its outcomes to be nullified.   > However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes off > one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee.   Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have no power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are many lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above.   > The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an > authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power - > whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of the > appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this > instance. > If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated.   > All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new ones. > Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, till they > are replaced by a new set.   Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have been the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. We were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each time I had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead and some decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did say that with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope.     > And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, till a > new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical need and > importance should be obvious. The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list]   > In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is > wrong.   The decision was based on the Charter.   > And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no appeals > committee.   I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is it not? > > An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated and > no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to be.... > This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter that I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review current procedures and guidelines.   > I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect.   You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team which the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have attacked. Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had recused himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if it is the will of the list.   > In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators should > start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest.   That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My recommendations are to review the Charter.   Respectfully,   parminder > > On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Dear Imran, >> >> Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG >> NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find >> the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. >> >> Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>   >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 15:26:23 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:26:23 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement re UN Human Rights Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous issues to a cohesive succint statement. The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments and contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap this up in time by at least the 28th February, 2012. Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:20 AM, McTim wrote: > I don't think we can speak for the entire IGF. > > I think it can be cut down by about 50%. We don't need to reference > evangelists or the SOPA/PIPA bills for example. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > On 2/26/12, Paul Lehto wrote: > > Below is a brief statement on "Human Rights on the Internet". I have to > go > > offline for two and a half hours but then will be back online in case > > anyone has comments, questions or additions to the text below. At that > > point I would hope to make some changes if any are suggested, then have > it > > posted for comment. In general, I didn't like the title "Human Rights > on > > the Internet" because it makes as little sense to me as raising the > > question of human rights on the mountains or in the valleys, or on the > > oceans, etc. Human rights exist everywhere, including the internet. The > > question is the constant need to keep awareness of them high > > > > *Human Rights on the Internet * > > > > Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their > > technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology > without > > borders. > > > > The open architecture of the Internet facilitates and enhances many > > pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free > > expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly, > > creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to the > > culture of society. Internet technology and design choices > simultaneously > > extends human interaction in multiple directions regardless of borders, > at > > a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously > imaginable. > > > > This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the > > Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the > > Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by > > already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought > > leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as > > “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have > > caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining > > democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” > for > > all, without the prominent downsides often associated with actual some > > implementations of government and religion. > > > > If the Internet, as a network of networks, is a great force for human > > flourishing, and if humans have the inborn desire to flourish under > > conditions of self-determination, the most powerful question to ask > > concerning rights on the Internet is not so much where these rights arise > > from, or how they may be further enforced in ancient courts, but where > any > > claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises > from, > > and how such a right of interference can be legitimately asserted and > > enforced. Given that the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate > > behaviors often called rights and freedoms, and given that the Internet > as > > a whole is owner-less and international, how can any business, > government, > > or person both obtain a right to interfere with the freedom of the > > Internet, and also legitimately enforce that right? In this light, any > > lack of clarity deemed to exist by some regarding where human rights > “come > > from” pales in comparison to the difficulties of coherently positing and > > persuading others of a right to interfere with the freedom of others on > the > > Internet. To the extent such interference becomes known publicly, it > will > > be highly likely to suffer the same fate as SOPA and PIPA legislation > > recently did, because any such right to interfere with inherent human > > rights and freedom is far more difficult to successfully theorize and > > explain than the human rights we all want for ourselves, but may or may > not > > extend to all others equally. > > > > Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered > > with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including > > businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, > > administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more > > choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the > > Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the > > Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much > > “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless > > of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is > > extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting > in > > ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully > > understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public > > interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to > impair > > or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim > > that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or > > otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case > of a > > business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor > > content, etc.) > > > > Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules > of > > host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights > > laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that > > domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc., should > be > > met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single > > country. > > > > In the general context of market freedom, the development of new > > technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their > > regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form > of > > regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities > > without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the > > countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and > expansion > > on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. > > This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers > and > > others who are creating the Internet in real time. > > > > The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of > education > > concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the > > context of the Internet, because important structural and design > decisions > > regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet > > engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it > is > > impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct > > effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes > place > > in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers > > making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge > of > > human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical > to > > preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about > human > > rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be > > decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of > > potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any > centralized > > ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. > > > > Therefore, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) declares that the Internet > > is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human > > freedoms and equality, the IGF condemns violations of human rights on the > > Internet and wherever they may occur, and the IGF calls upon the United > > Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education about > > human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users of > the > > Internet can maximize for all the value of the Internet as an enhancement > > of the human experience, making ever more real the human flourishing that > > is both the reality and the promise of the Internet. > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 15:28:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:28:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous issues to a cohesive succint statement. The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments and contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap this up in time by at least the 29th February, 2012. Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. > If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for > contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the > statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a > Statement by the 29th February, 2012. > > The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place > between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: > http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx > > *Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email:* > Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual > report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session > will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of > Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel > event. > >> > >> > >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be > planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) > and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you > are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and > cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country > reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. > >> > >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the > panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if > possible. > >> > > Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human > Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting > in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? > > Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human > rights:- > > - privacy > - security > - freedom of expression > - intellectual property > > or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the >> Agenda: >> >> >> See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true >> >> >> Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet >> >> On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision >> to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at >> its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative >> of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. >> This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom >> of expression on the Internet. >> >> "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human >> rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister >> for Foreign Affairs. >> >> Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and >> protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, >> presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN >> Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl >> Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in >> La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of >> influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. >> This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude >> today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and >> representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and >> civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of >> expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human >> Rights Council for the first time. >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and >>> use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that >>> there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the >>> years. >>> >>> We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put >>> together a first draft for others to comment. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Robert, >>>> >>>> What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? >>>> Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. >>>> >>>> Best wishes & regards >>>> Shahzad >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Brett, >>>> > >>>> > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum >>>> should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that >>>> was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this >>>> past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and >>>> it was not accepted. >>>> > >>>> > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the >>>> meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes >>>> at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >>>> > is still being discussed. >>>> > >>>> > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated >>>> effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >>>> > >>>> > regards >>>> > >>>> > Robert >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > R. Guerra >>>> > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>> > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>> > >>>> > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Thanks Joy, >>>> >> >>>> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the >>>> High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb >>>> 29). >>>> >> >>>> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the >>>> realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil >>>> society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with >>>> confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the >>>> broader constellation of human rights. >>>> >> >>>> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and >>>> recommendations can be found here: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>>> >> >>>> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the >>>> actual Panel. >>>> >> >>>> >> Brett >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Brett Solomon >>>> >> Executive Director | Access >>>> >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>>> >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>>> >> Dear colleagues, >>>> >> >>>> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights >>>> Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>>> >> >>>> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >>>> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >>>> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >>>> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >>>> the panel event. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >>>> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >>>> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >>>> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >>>> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >>>> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >>>> Rue. >>>> >> >>>> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >>>> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >>>> possible. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Kind regards >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Joy Liddicoat >>>> >> >>>> >> Project Coordinator >>>> >> >>>> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>>> >> >>>> >> www.apc.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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 15:29:30 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:29:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Theoretically, if anyone had been paying attention to the charter, he should have resigned from the appeals team before being selected and perhaps even before applying. from http://www.igcaucus.org/node/2 > All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. As others have said, the practice in IGC is one serves until they are replaced and I do not see anything in the charter that would determine otherwise.. Based on that practice, we still do have an appeals team composed of: http://www.igcaucus.org/appeals-team > 2010 > Avri Doria (North America/Europe), Charity Gamboa-Embley (North America/Southeast Asia), Fouad Bajwa (South Asia), Ginger Paque (LAC) and Lee McKnight (North America). avri On 26 Feb 2012, at 14:53, Ian Peter wrote: > > > To me the key is this – should a member of the Appeals Team, whose term of commitment for one year has expired, be allowed to stand for other office? To me the answer is clearly yes. The only proviso would be that they then stand down from Appeals Team if selected. As I understand it Fouad is quite willing to do this if he has not done so already. > > So I have no problem at all with the decision, and I note Parminder is not against the decision either. I think Sala’s decision was completely right and will leave interpretation of the Charter to others. > > Ian > > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200 > To: , parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination > > Dear Parminder, > > Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. > > To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter. The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision must be aligned to the Charter. > > The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when they were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only the NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. > > Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that were specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the Charter, there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal Team. > > On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom to , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. When I said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had to factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so if that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be possibilities of "conflict:. > > Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew" the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the reefs.] > > This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. > > In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and procedures prescribed in the Charter. > > Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put to the list. > > My comments are inline: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder wrote: >> Dear Sala >> >> Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's nomination to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur) that, although there have been numerous procedural problems with this nomcom process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. > >> However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee. > > Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have no power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are many lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above. > >> The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power - whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of the appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this instance. >> > If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated. > >> All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new ones. Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, till they are replaced by a new set. > > Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have been the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. We were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each time I had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead and some decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did say that with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope. > > >> And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, till a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical need and importance should be obvious. > The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list] > >> In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is wrong. > > The decision was based on the Charter. > >> And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no appeals committee. > > I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is it not? >> >> An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to be.... >> > This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter that I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review current procedures and guidelines. > >> I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. > > You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team which the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have attacked. Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had recused himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if it is the will of the list. > >> In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. > > That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My recommendations are to review the Charter. > > Respectfully, > > parminder > >> >> On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear Imran, >>> >>> Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. >>> >>> Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Feb 26 15:33:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:33:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement re UN Human Rights Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will also comment on the Workspace. I just want to add this bit from the website: *The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all.* We can't speak for the IGF but we can raise our views as the IGC. On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no > easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous > issues to a cohesive succint statement. > > The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments > and contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap > this up in time by at least the 28th February, 2012. > > Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:20 AM, McTim wrote: > >> I don't think we can speak for the entire IGF. >> >> I think it can be cut down by about 50%. We don't need to reference >> evangelists or the SOPA/PIPA bills for example. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> On 2/26/12, Paul Lehto wrote: >> > Below is a brief statement on "Human Rights on the Internet". I have >> to go >> > offline for two and a half hours but then will be back online in case >> > anyone has comments, questions or additions to the text below. At that >> > point I would hope to make some changes if any are suggested, then have >> it >> > posted for comment. In general, I didn't like the title "Human >> Rights on >> > the Internet" because it makes as little sense to me as raising the >> > question of human rights on the mountains or in the valleys, or on the >> > oceans, etc. Human rights exist everywhere, including the internet. >> The >> > question is the constant need to keep awareness of them high >> > >> > *Human Rights on the Internet * >> > >> > Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their >> > technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology >> without >> > borders. >> > >> > The open architecture of the Internet facilitates and enhances many >> > pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free >> > expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly, >> > creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to >> the >> > culture of society. Internet technology and design choices >> simultaneously >> > extends human interaction in multiple directions regardless of borders, >> at >> > a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously >> imaginable. >> > >> > This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of >> the >> > Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the >> > Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by >> > already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought >> > leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as >> > “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have >> > caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining >> > democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” >> for >> > all, without the prominent downsides often associated with actual some >> > implementations of government and religion. >> > >> > If the Internet, as a network of networks, is a great force for human >> > flourishing, and if humans have the inborn desire to flourish under >> > conditions of self-determination, the most powerful question to ask >> > concerning rights on the Internet is not so much where these rights >> arise >> > from, or how they may be further enforced in ancient courts, but where >> any >> > claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises >> from, >> > and how such a right of interference can be legitimately asserted and >> > enforced. Given that the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate >> > behaviors often called rights and freedoms, and given that the Internet >> as >> > a whole is owner-less and international, how can any business, >> government, >> > or person both obtain a right to interfere with the freedom of the >> > Internet, and also legitimately enforce that right? In this light, any >> > lack of clarity deemed to exist by some regarding where human rights >> “come >> > from” pales in comparison to the difficulties of coherently positing and >> > persuading others of a right to interfere with the freedom of others on >> the >> > Internet. To the extent such interference becomes known publicly, it >> will >> > be highly likely to suffer the same fate as SOPA and PIPA legislation >> > recently did, because any such right to interfere with inherent human >> > rights and freedom is far more difficult to successfully theorize and >> > explain than the human rights we all want for ourselves, but may or may >> not >> > extend to all others equally. >> > >> > Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be >> interfered >> > with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including >> > businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, >> > administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more >> > choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on >> the >> > Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the >> > Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much >> > “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. >> Regardless >> > of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is >> > extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting >> in >> > ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully >> > understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public >> > interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to >> impair >> > or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to >> claim >> > that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or >> > otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case >> of a >> > business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor >> > content, etc.) >> > >> > Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal >> rules of >> > host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights >> > laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that >> > domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc., >> should be >> > met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single >> > country. >> > >> > In the general context of market freedom, the development of new >> > technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their >> > regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some >> form of >> > regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities >> > without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in >> the >> > countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and >> expansion >> > on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. >> > This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers >> and >> > others who are creating the Internet in real time. >> > >> > The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of >> education >> > concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the >> > context of the Internet, because important structural and design >> decisions >> > regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet >> > engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it >> is >> > impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct >> > effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes >> place >> > in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers >> > making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge >> of >> > human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially >> critical to >> > preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about >> human >> > rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can >> be >> > decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of >> > potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any >> centralized >> > ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. >> > >> > Therefore, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) declares that the >> Internet >> > is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human >> > freedoms and equality, the IGF condemns violations of human rights on >> the >> > Internet and wherever they may occur, and the IGF calls upon the United >> > Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education >> about >> > human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users of >> the >> > Internet can maximize for all the value of the Internet as an >> enhancement >> > of the human experience, making ever more real the human flourishing >> that >> > is both the reality and the promise of the Internet. >> > >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Feb 26 16:42:11 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:42:11 +0500 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <78CE437D-7E3E-4BF7-9B39-550697473887@gmail.com> Hi, Kindly note that that my term had expired in October 2011 and I had not put my name forward for any future selection on the appeals team, as I was selected for one year in October 2010 so presently the appeals team stands expired. Also, if I receive the possibility to remain on the MAG, I will not serve on the future appeals team. Currently I am not serving on the appeals team after its expiry of one year. Fouad Bajwa sent using my iPad On 27 Feb 2012, at 12:53 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > To me the key is this – should a member of the Appeals Team, whose term of commitment for one year has expired, be allowed to stand for other office? To me the answer is clearly yes. The only proviso would be that they then stand down from Appeals Team if selected. As I understand it Fouad is quite willing to do this if he has not done so already. > > So I have no problem at all with the decision, and I note Parminder is not against the decision either. I think Sala’s decision was completely right and will leave interpretation of the Charter to others. > > Ian > > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200 > To: , parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination > > Dear Parminder, > > Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. > > To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter. The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision must be aligned to the Charter. > > The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when they were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only the NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. > > Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that were specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the Charter, there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal Team. > > On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom to , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. When I said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had to factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so if that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be possibilities of "conflict:. > > Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew" the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the reefs.] > > This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. > > In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and procedures prescribed in the Charter. > > Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put to the list. > > My comments are inline: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear Sala > > Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's nomination to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur) that, although there have been numerous procedural problems with this nomcom process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. > > However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee. > > Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have no power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are many lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above. > > The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power - whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of the appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this instance. > > If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated. > > All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new ones. Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, till they are replaced by a new set. > > Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have been the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. We were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each time I had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead and some decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did say that with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope. > > > And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, till a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical need and importance should be obvious. > The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list] > > In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is wrong. > > The decision was based on the Charter. > > And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no appeals committee. > > I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is it not? > > An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to be.... > > This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter that I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review current procedures and guidelines. > > I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. > > You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team which the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have attacked. Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had recused himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if it is the will of the list. > > In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. > > That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My recommendations are to review the Charter. > > Respectfully, > > parminder > > > On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Imran, > > Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. > > Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 16:45:12 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:45:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: <4F49C5F5.5090407@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07F522@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Sala, Thanks for your comments and clarifications. I am speaking as an IGCer now and not necessarily as an appeals team member, which I may or may not be ; ) Re the Appeals Team and NomCom and etc... >From a strict constructivist point of view I agree you (Sala) are likely correct and some amendments/elaborations on eventualities in the case of x y and z may be needed to the Charter. On the other hand, I agree with Avri re usual IGC practice and historical precedence on how the Charter has been interpreted to date. And this is not uncommon or necessarily a criticism of IGC or the Charter and any specific action past or present. For example, if far more legalistic than cs UN procedures can be amended on the fly in various ways around the IGF...e.g., UN docs and staff stating a MAG will expire by x date and then change it to y date, then so can we. Meaning: the Appeals Team whose term technically has expired, as Avria notes, is the last known Appeals Team. In other cases we have had coordinators serve on for months past the 'official' expiration of their term for one reason or another, agreed by general list consensus, their help was still needed. So the expedient solution at the moment may be to turn to the list and ask - does anyone object to the last known Appeals Team being asked to - continue, until another Appeals team can be called. Then it is the collective of IGC and not you or the NomCom or the Appeals Team making the decision. If the collective objects, then fine, something else must be done. My 2 cents trying to help us wade through this. And not that I am particularly looking for more to do right now, in my possibly (or not) Appeals Team capacity. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2012 1:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination Dear Parminder, Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter. The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision must be aligned to the Charter. The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when they were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only the NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that were specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the Charter, there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal Team. On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom to , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. When I said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had to factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so if that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be possibilities of "conflict:. Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew" the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the reefs.] This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and procedures prescribed in the Charter. Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put to the list. My comments are inline: On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder > wrote: Dear Sala Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's nomination to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur) that, although there have been numerous procedural problems with this nomcom process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee. Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have no power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are many lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above. The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power - whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of the appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this instance. If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated. All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new ones. Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, till they are replaced by a new set. Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have been the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. We were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each time I had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead and some decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did say that with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope. And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, till a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical need and importance should be obvious. The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list] In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is wrong. The decision was based on the Charter. And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no appeals committee. I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is it not? An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to be.... This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter that I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review current procedures and guidelines. I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team which the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have attacked. Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had recused himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if it is the will of the list. In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My recommendations are to review the Charter. Respectfully, parminder On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear Imran, Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 16:47:22 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:47:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Theoretically, if anyone had been paying attention to the charter, he > should have resigned from the appeals team before being selected and > perhaps even before applying. > > from http://www.igcaucus.org/node/2 > > Your comments are based on the assumption that there is an Appeals Team. Issue - Is there an Appeals Team? *Things to consider: * * * - Under the Charter, what is the term of the Appeal Team appointment? - When was the NomCom commissioned to activate the process of selection of the Appeal Team? - Was there a renewal process by the NomCom? - When did the renewal process occur? - Under the Charter, can the Appeal Team assume that their term extends beyond one year of their prescribed term? [If so what is the basis of the assumption and is it prescribed under the Charter?] > All nomcom participants, voting and non voting, will be disqualified from selection as candidates for the list or team being chosen. Members of the current appeals team will also be disqualified from being chosen. As others have said, the practice in IGC is one serves until they are replaced and I do not see anything in the charter that would determine otherwise.. Based on that practice, we still do have an appeals team composed of: http://www.igcaucus.org/appeals-team > 2010 > Avri Doria (North America/Europe), Charity Gamboa-Embley (North America/Southeast Asia), Fouad Bajwa (South Asia), Ginger Paque (LAC) and Lee McKnight (North America). avri > > > On 26 Feb 2012, at 14:53, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > > To me the key is this – should a member of the Appeals Team, whose term > of commitment for one year has expired, be allowed to stand for other > office? To me the answer is clearly yes. The only proviso would be that > they then stand down from Appeals Team if selected. As I understand it > Fouad is quite willing to do this if he has not done so already. > > > > So I have no problem at all with the decision, and I note Parminder is > not against the decision either. I think Sala’s decision was completely > right and will leave interpretation of the Charter to others. > > > > Ian > > > > > > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > > Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200 > > To: , parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against > MAG Nomination > > > > Dear Parminder, > > > > Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. > > > > To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the > Charter. The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every > decision must be aligned to the Charter. > > > > The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that > decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when > they were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only > the NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. > > > > Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that > were specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the > Charter, there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal > Team. > > > > On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom > to , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. > When I said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had > to factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so > if that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be > possibilities of "conflict:. > > > > Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom > is being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even > "renew" the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was > very impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer > his Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the > reefs.] > > > > This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to > activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new > Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. > > > > In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the > case has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the > NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by > force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators > influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to > select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and > procedures prescribed in the Charter. > > > > Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is > certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put > to the list. > > > > My comments are inline: > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> Dear Sala > >> > >> Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's > nomination to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur) > that, although there have been numerous procedural problems with this > nomcom process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. > > > >> However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily > disposes off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals > committee. > > > > Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I > have no power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There > are many lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above. > > > >> The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from > an authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power > - whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of > the appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in > this instance. > >> > > If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please > provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. > What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated. > > > >> All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new > ones. Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, > till they are replaced by a new set. > > > > Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have > been the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the > Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. > We were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each > time I had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead > and some decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did > say that with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope. > > > > > >> And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, > till a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical > need and importance should be obvious. > > The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs > revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members > at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available > in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the > issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, > who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or > reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for > discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list] > > > >> In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee > is wrong. > > > > The decision was based on the Charter. > > > >> And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no > appeals committee. > > > > I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the > current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning > the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is > it not? > >> > >> An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator > incapacitated and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation > for us to be.... > >> > > This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter > that I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review > current procedures and guidelines. > > > >> I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. > > > > You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team > which the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have > attacked. Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had > recused himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if > it is the will of the list. > > > >> In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators > should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. > > > > That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My > recommendations are to review the Charter. > > > > Respectfully, > > > > parminder > > > >> > >> On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > >>> Dear Imran, > >>> > >>> Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the > MAG NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly > find the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, > 2012. > >>> > >>> Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards, > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> > >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 16:59:43 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:59:43 +1200 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07F522@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4F49C5F5.5090407@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07F522@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Lee, Thank you for your comments. The thing is under the Charter, only the NomCom can choose the Appeal Team or renew the Appeal Team. It is not the Coordinators, not the Appearl Team and neither the IGC at learge who can renew or select the Appeal Team. As such, currently we have one NomCom who have just selected the MAG Nominees. They are our best option at the moment to select or renew the Appeal Team (and not out of any coercion/influence from any of us). I had raised that the other option under the current rules is for a new NomCom to be appointed to select the Appeals Team or renew the same. This would take 2 months or so. Under these circumstances, our options are narrow. Possible options right now are to see whether people who are fighting for have an immediate Appeals Team still want to complain about the NomCom that selected the MAG because as it is under the Charter, they are our only immediate best bet in terms of renewing the Appeals Team or selecting one. Let us dialogue around the issue. One of the problems from a policy perspective if we deliberately choose to reject the current processes under the Charter, we open and create a pattern and precedence to breach procedures etc in the future. Like all of you, we need an Appeals Team and we need one convened whether they are renewed or selected, it is important that they are selected. >From my own personal opinion, the Charter needs to be reviewed asap. Kind Regards, On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Sala, > > Thanks for your comments and clarifications. > > I am speaking as an IGCer now and not necessarily as an appeals team > member, which I may or may not be ; ) > > Re the Appeals Team and NomCom and etc... > > From a strict constructivist point of view I agree you (Sala) are likely > correct and some amendments/elaborations on eventualities in the case of x > y and z may be needed to the Charter. > > On the other hand, I agree with Avri re usual IGC practice and historical > precedence on how the Charter has been interpreted to date. > > And this is not uncommon or necessarily a criticism of IGC or the Charter > and any specific action past or present. > > For example, if far more legalistic than cs UN procedures can be amended > on the fly in various ways around the IGF...e.g., UN docs and staff stating > a MAG will expire by x date and then change it to y date, then so can we. > > Meaning: the Appeals Team whose term technically has expired, as Avria > notes, is the last known Appeals Team. In other cases we have had > coordinators serve on for months past the 'official' expiration of their > term for one reason or another, agreed by general list consensus, their > help was still needed. > > So the expedient solution at the moment may be to turn to the list and ask > - does anyone object to the last known Appeals Team being asked to - > continue, until another Appeals team can be called. > > Then it is the collective of IGC and not you or the NomCom or the Appeals > Team making the decision. > > If the collective objects, then fine, something else must be done. > > My 2 cents trying to help us wade through this. And not that I am > particularly looking for more to do right now, in my possibly (or not) > Appeals Team capacity. > > Lee > ------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 26, 2012 1:30 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against > MAG Nomination > > Dear Parminder, > > Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. > > To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter. > The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision > must be aligned to the Charter. > > The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that > decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when > they were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only > the NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. > > Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that > were specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the > Charter, there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal > Team. > > On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom > to , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. > When I said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had > to factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so > if that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be > possibilities of "conflict:. > > Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is > being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew" > the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very > impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his > Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the > reefs.] > > This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to > activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new > Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. > > In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case > has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the > NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by > force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators > influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to > select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and > procedures prescribed in the Charter. > > Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is > certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put > to the list. > > My comments are inline: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder wrote: > >> ** >> Dear Sala >> >> Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's >> nomination to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I >> concur) that, although there have been numerous procedural problems with >> this nomcom process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. >> > > >> However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily >> disposes off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals >> committee. >> > > Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have > no power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are > many lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above. > > >> The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from >> an authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power- whether deliberate or inadvertent -is one of the most important task of the appeal's committee. Almost sounds >> like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this instance. >> >> If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please > provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. > What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated. > > >> All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new >> ones. Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, >> till they are replaced by a new set. >> > > Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have > been the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the > Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. > We were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each > time I had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead > and some decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did > say that with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope. > > > >> And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, >> till a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical >> need and importance should be obvious. >> > The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs > revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members > at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available > in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the > issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, > who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or > reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for > discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list] > > >> In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee >> is wrong. >> > > The decision was based on the Charter. > > >> And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no >> appeals committee. >> > > I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the > current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning > the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is > it not? > >> >> An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator >> incapacitated and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation >> for us to be.... >> >> This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter > that I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review > current procedures and guidelines. > > >> I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. >> > > You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team > which the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have > attacked. Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had > recused himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if > it is the will of the list. > > >> In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators >> should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. >> > > That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My > recommendations are to review the Charter. > > Respectfully, > > parminder > > >> On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> Dear Imran, >> >> Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG >> NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly >> find the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, >> 2012. >> >> Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 17:34:23 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:34:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 - CIR? In-Reply-To: <4F4A67C2.5090201@apc.org> References: <4F4A3ABE.3090208@cafonso.ca> <4F4A67C2.5090201@apc.org> Message-ID: <4F4AB36F.3010702@cafonso.ca> I guess some of the people involved with IGC might be participating in this week's CWG-WCIT in Geneva. It would be nice if we had a report in this list after Feb.29, when the meeting ends. --c.a. On 02/26/2012 02:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear c.a. > > I agree with you strongly on this. But keep in mind that this synthesis > paper only covers the Open Consultation. > > At the MAG meeting sessions were discussed in far more detail, and I > think that Bill Drake might have mentioned WCIT 2012 as being very > important. > > Best > > Anriette > > > > On 26/02/12 15:59, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Dear people, >> >> The February synthesis paper of the open consultations published in the >> IGF official site mentions the following regarding "critical Internet >> resources": >> >> --- begin doc citation --- >> >> 25. In terms of Critical Internet Resources it was seen by several >> commentators that further debate is needed around issues such as the >> institutional structure of IG, including the future of ICANN, IP >> addressing, root servers and Internet exchange points. >> >> 26. Several suggestions were made for the Critical Internet Issues >> theme, including, inter alia; >> >> • Best Practices for eliminating barriers to access to the Internet; >> >> • IPv6 and the impact and opportunities for the developing world that >> may result from the transition to IPv6 and how does the coming depletion >> of IPv4 addresses affect developing countries? >> >> • What is the effect of the deployment of multilingual domain names, >> i.e. IDN.IDN? >> >> • Issues of ICANN's naming policy and the impact of the new gTLDs and >> IDN gTLDs; >> >> • Technical issues such as DNS blocking and how such technical issues >> drive or impact policy. >> >> --- end doc citation --- >> >> In light of the ongoing ITU process leading to WCIT 2012 aiming at, >> among other goals, radically revising the 1988 ITR to try to take >> account of the ICT challenges posed by the Internet, I think the above >> points are far from sufficient. >> >> At a minimum, IGF's CIR "track" should include a review of the ITU >> meetings' outcomes. >> >> 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 avri at acm.org Sun Feb 26 17:59:51 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:59:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33C38FD6-D98B-4C7E-AF26-B051FDB48229@acm.org> On 26 Feb 2012, at 16:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Your comments are based on the assumption that there is an Appeals Team. That is my presumption. And as a member of that appeals team I do not see where a co-co gets the authority to declare it not so. Especially in a case where their judgement and activities might be an issue. > > Issue - Is there an Appeals Team? > > Things to consider: > > • Under the Charter, what is the term of the Appeal Team appointment? Doesn't say specifically. It says it will be selected yearly. One wasn't. It also says there is an Appeals Team >> The IGC will have two coordinators, and an appeals team. > > >> The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as defined > • When was the NomCom commissioned to activate the process of selection of the Appeal Team? Never was. > • Was there a renewal process by the NomCom? Nope > • When did the renewal process occur? Didn't. Do not see how these questions are relevant. It does not need to be renewed, in fact can't as there need to be new people on a new appeals team. > • Under the Charter, can the Appeal Team assume that their term extends beyond one year of their prescribed term? [If so what is the basis of the assumption and is it prescribed under the Charter?] > I do not see how they can assume anything other than that their terms extends until they are replaced. And that has been the practice since the charter was created. For co-cos, as well as appeals team. I think this is the third time it has happened to the appeals team. Never before did the co-cos declare it gone. I speculated about it being gone at one point, but a review of everything said so far by others, convinces me that there is still an appeals time. A few points of my own: - no one has brought this issue to the appeals team - if anyone, especially the co-cos beleive that we do not have an appeals team, I find it extraordinary that no one has initiated a process to create one. It is negligent of the co-cos to allow the IGC to run without one if that is what they beleive is happening. If they just think the old one is still standing by, that is a bit remiss but within normal practice, if they think the IGC is running without one, they it is truly a problem since the IGC depends upon the existence of the appeals team for its governance process legitimacy. Though never yet used, without an appeals team, the co-cos become dictators. - in some ways the deficiency of the co-cos actually making sure that the appeals team be replaced is a bigger issue than the specific issue of a member of the appeals team being named by the Nomcom. Since the UNSG's office plans to allow two of the reps to continue, and since with all the resignations only two remain*, there probably was not chance they would be removed from the MAG, no matter what IGC said. The appointment of an appeals team members by the Nomcom is a moot point as he probably get to stay on the MAG as he wishes even without IGC endorsement. avri * at least i think that is the case. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 18:41:14 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:41:14 +1200 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: <33C38FD6-D98B-4C7E-AF26-B051FDB48229@acm.org> References: <33C38FD6-D98B-4C7E-AF26-B051FDB48229@acm.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 26 Feb 2012, at 16:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > Your comments are based on the assumption that there is an Appeals Team. > > That is my presumption. And as a member of that appeals team I do not see > where a co-co gets the authority to declare it not so. The Charter, specifically states: "An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board *will be selected yearly* by a randomly selected nominating committee *as defined within the Charter*." [Underlining and emphasis is mine] > Especially in a case where their judgement and activities might be an > issue. > > > > > Issue - Is there an Appeals Team? > > > > Things to consider: > > > > • Under the Charter, what is the term of the Appeal Team > appointment? > > Doesn't say specifically. It says it will be selected yearly. One wasn't. > > It also says there is an Appeals Team > > >> The IGC will have two coordinators, and an appeals team. > This is not contended. > > > > > >> The appeals board will be selected yearly by a randomly selected > nominating committee as defined > > > > • When was the NomCom commissioned to activate the process of > selection of the Appeal Team? > > Never was. > > I agree, it never was > > • Was there a renewal process by the NomCom? > > Nope > > I agree this has not happened yet. > > • When did the renewal process occur? > > Didn't. > Do not see how these questions are relevant. It does not need to be > renewed, in fact can't as there need to be new people on a new appeals team. > > They are extremely relevant because it is a critical consideration that > had to be factored in arriving at the decision in the first instance. The > basis of the complaint was that an Appeal member could not be one of the > candidates considered or Nominees for the MAG. > > > • Under the Charter, can the Appeal Team assume that their term > extends beyond one year of their prescribed term? [If so what is the basis > of the assumption and is it prescribed under the Charter?] > > > > I do not see how they can assume anything other than that their terms > extends until they are replaced. > > You are saying that they can assume that their terms are extended. > And that has been the practice since the charter was created. > Just because it has been the practice does'nt make it legitimate. I had asked the question whether NomComs were involved in the selection of the Appeal or the renewal. > > For co-cos, as well as appeals team. I think this is the third time it > has happened to the appeals team. Never before did the co-cos declare it > gone. > > I speculated about it being gone at one point, but a review of everything > said so far by others, convinces me that there is still an appeals time. > If we go by this logic, we say that the provision within the Charter is absurd and therefore we can assume the extension. I actually think the entire Charter needs to be reviewed (my personal opinion) to give room for things like extending or assuming renewals. > > A few points of my own: > > - no one has brought this issue to the appeals team > - if anyone, especially the co-cos beleive that we do not have an appeals > team, I find it extraordinary that no one has initiated a process to create > one. It is negligent of the co-cos to allow the IGC to run without one if > that is what they beleive is happening. If you recall I had mentioned that we had narrow options. The use of the word "negligent" implies a breach of duty of care. The issue of what a reasonable person would have done is also taken into consideration. Take for example, the fact that the NomCom were given a month to review applicants and candidates and also over the holidays. In hindsight, the process to initiate the NomCom process to select new NomCom for the purposes of selecting an Appeals Team should have been done in October, 2012. If I had known what I had known today, this would have been done then and for this failure, I apologise to everyone in the IGC. In January, it became apparent that there were possible complaints against the only NomCom that is available and I had to exercise care in protecting the NomCom to enable them (in the event that we did not opt to select a new Nom Com that would take 2 months under the current Charter rules) to be commissioned under the Charter to renew or select a new Appeals Team. However, as circumstances would have it, they came under fire and were criticised for the way that they carried out their roles in the first sitting or selection process. Was I able to foresee that the NomCom Appeal Team would be subject to possible appeals and complaints? In hindsight, I should have been able to. I am happy to step down as co-coordinator and agree that I should have foreseen and forecasted better. If they just think the old one is still standing by, that is a bit remiss but within normal practice, if they think the IGC is running without one, they it is truly a problem since the IGC depends upon the existence of the appeals team for its governance process legitimacy. Though never yet used, without an appeals team, the co-cos become dictators. Respectfully, you will see that our style is very collaborative, we welcome dialogue, we don't like to see anyone marginalised. Being a dictator has all kinds of connotations which I outrightly reject. If anything, I was trying to carry out my responsibilities in compliance with the Charter. - in some ways the deficiency of the co-cos actually making sure that the appeals team be replaced is a bigger issue than the specific issue of a member of the appeals team being named by the Nomcom. I have a lot to learn no doubt and will definitely learn from this. There is room for alot of improvements and will definitely make sure that this is not repeated. I would be looking into revising the Coordinators guidelines to ensure that the process of selection of Appeal Team is done in advance etc. For the inconvenience to IGC, I apologise. Izumi and I will meet today as we are having our monthly meeting and we will revert with a decision. Since the UNSG's office plans to allow two of the reps to continue, and since with all the resignations only two remain*, there probably was not chance they would be removed from the MAG, no matter what IGC said. The appointment of an appeals team members by the Nomcom is a moot point as he probably get to stay on the MAG as he wishes even without IGC endorsement. avri * at least i think that is the case. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 26 18:41:29 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:41:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] IP-Watch Brief: US, WIPO IP Summit In Africa Postponed In-Reply-To: <1330292270.65588.YahooMailMobile@web161501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1330292270.65588.YahooMailMobile@web161501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: *Excellent news.* - - - On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 22:37, ari wrote: > > ------------------------------ > * From: * Intellectual Property Watch ; > * To: * ; > * Subject: * IP-Watch Brief: US, WIPO IP Summit In Africa Postponed > * Sent: * Sun, Feb 26, 2012 7:28:31 PM > > This is the post digest for sultane at yahoo.com sent by the Intellectual > Property Watch website. > > ****************************** > February 26, 2012. US, WIPO IP Summit In Africa Postponed > > A training programme on intellectual property organised by the United > States with several partners to be held in Africa in April has been > postponed under pressure to make the programme more transparent and > representative of all stakeholders. > > Link to the article: > http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=19700&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts > > - - - A rather long but informative article: http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/02/12/us-wipo-training-programme-on-ip-rights-in-africa-comes-under-fire/ an excerpt .. Prof. Brook Baker of Northeastern University law school and Health GAP, said: It is deeply problematic that the Obama administration continues to pursue efforts to strengthen, widen, and lengthen patent, data, and copyright monopolies in African countries that desperately need expanded access to medicines, educational materials, and climate control technologies and that it simultaneously seeks even stronger enforcement of IP protections than what is currently required under international law. Carrying the policy portfolio of Big Pharma and other IP-based multinationals under the guise of addressing Africa’s needs, the proposed African IP Summit is a chilling example of US duplicity and conflict of interest at its worst. However, it is equally problematic if Africa leaders and policy makers, some of whom are already complicit with the US agenda, continue to drink the IP KoolAid as they’ve done with proposed anti-counterfeiting legislation and with their long-lasting lethargy in amending their IP laws to take full advantage of TRIPS flexibilities and thereafter to use those flexibilities to access medicines and other essential technologies.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Sun Feb 26 19:23:41 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:23:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Some Further Thoughts on the 2012 NomCom In-Reply-To: <4F4A9DB3.9040108@communisphere.com> References: <4F4A9DB3.9040108@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <4F4ACD0D.9040809@communisphere.com> Dear All, Let me provide some "off the record" reflections on my recent NomCom experiences. These are my recollections, and should an Appeals Committee be appointed, I'll check emails to verify the details and cooperate in any way necessary. But my hope in preparing this is that the activation of the Appeals Committee will be found unnecessary, and that we can focus on more productive efforts such as the Human Rights on the Internet document . For background, I've been on IGC since shortly after its inception, read thousands of emails, and responded perhaps a hundred or so times over the years. But I've thought of myself as a bit of a lurker when compared to the many who are more fully engaged. Feeling a tad guilty, when calls for NomCom volunteers have arisen, I've submitted my name, albeit on the second "come on guys" call from the coordinator. Once before my name was picked, for an Appeals Committee. I never heard a word from that experience other than an eventual “Thank you for your participation” as there were no appeals. Prior to this IGC NomCom, my experience with nominating committees was limited to a Parents Association at my children's grade school. It was a newly formed Association and with the expiration of my term as the initial co-president, I needed to fill several seats - President, Vic-President, Treasurer, and Secretary. We'd started the Association two years prior and filling those seats required a half hour of pleading with the 50 or so parents at the general meeting before several arose to take on the responsibilities. Quite different for the recent NomCom. In this instance I was selected as a reserve in June 2011, and advanced to the NomCom in July when some those picked declined the appointment. I'd expected it to be a learning experience, which it was and continues to be. Early on there was a note from the chair to the effect that, as activities at the MAG were in some disarray, “Let's wait until we're needed.” I acquiesced and awaited further direction. That came on January 3 with the following from Izumi: Dear Jeremy and all, Dear respected members of NomCom of the Civil Society Internet Governance Forum: Antonio Medina Gómez , Carlos Watson, Jacqueline Morris, Julián Casasbuenas G., Shaila Mistry and Thomas Lowenhaupt. You are the very important part of the CS IGC. In December, the UN Under Secretary in charge of IGF called for the formation of the MAG and invited the submission for the nomination... A day later Jacqueline sent a draft "call for nominations" letter to which I submitted comments. Several days later she sent it out incorporating the recommended changes. Over the first week or so I made several inquiries of the chair regarding policy and process and received some response. As has now become apparent, for unknown reasons Jacqueline became increasingly unable to perform the duties for which she had volunteered. Her inability only became apparent as we approached the deadline for submission of the names. On January 25 Jacqueline forwarded to the NomCom members all the nominations she had received. Effort was put to initiate a conversation about the nominees including a Doodle (an organizing tool doodle.com) and a suggested list of possible nominees. With little activity on the list, I submitted to the NomCom a group of candidate names that I thought were qualified and representative. Jacqueline's ability to participate diminished further and as the deadline approach (I presume) she gathered and reviewed the information available to her and met her commitment to the IGC by submitting the names of candidates, all of which I believed met the selection criteria and would represent the IGC well at MAG. Shortly thereafter Jacqueline totally dropped out of the picture and, with a little time on my hands, I volunteered to put a final NomCom report together. (I have not heard what precluded Jacqueline's participation, but one January email mentioned health troubles.) After submitting the NomCom report the missing APC nominations came to light. Also, an extension of the submission deadline by IGF provided a possible 10 days additional for review. So, with the surfacing of the APC nominations and sparks beginning to fly, the active members of the NomCom sought a resolution by using the IGF extension as additional review time. At first we thought we would be able to reopen the process and review the APC nominees, and we thought we'd allow others to submit applications as well. At some point it seems the APC lost faith in our ability to resolve the situation (understandably) and submitted their nominees directly. At that point we decided to just go with the original nominees, and to suggest that the IGC support the also qualified APC nominees. We realized that this passed on more latitude to IGF decision makers than we would like, but it seemed the most acceptable option. As well, we made some preliminary recommendations on avoiding a repetition. To my knowledge the process faltered due to a convergence of timing, process, health, and knowledge/experience issues. I doubt they would recur, but the recommendations we made might be a first step in taking a look at the situation. This "Further Thoughts" was written with extreme reluctance as I'm certain Jacqueline entered this effort with all good intents. Things fell apart and I'm certain there's no one more sorry than she. (I wish here well.) I started out saying this was “off the record” as I wish there was a more private, humane way to review what has happened. But apparently there's not. I think a review of process rather than an appeal is appropriate. But if an Appeal is desired, I will help out, as I'm sure will the other committee members. However, I think we should move on and put our energy into efforts such as enhancing the Human Rights document. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. If people have additional questions I will do my best to answer them off-line. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 00:04:23 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:34:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F4B0ED7.5080209@itforchange.net> On Monday 27 February 2012 01:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > To me the key is this -- should a member of the Appeals Team, whose > term of commitment for one year has expired, be allowed to stand for > other office? To me the answer is clearly yes. The only proviso would > be that they then stand down from Appeals Team if selected. As I > understand it Fouad is quite willing to do this if he has not done so > already. > > So I have no problem at all with the decision, and I note Parminder is > not against the decision either. I think Sala's decision was > completely right and will leave interpretation of the Charter to others. In my opinion Sala's decision may be right to the extent that we cannot *too strictly* apply 'behaviour constraining' rules to a member of appeals committee past the period for which it was first constituted, though due diligence may require both the concerned member to have expressly disassociated himself from the the committee and the co-coordinators to have raised the issue. (Here again the 'problem' comes up that one of the two co-coordinators - the more experienced one - was himself a nominee and perhaps not in a position to do so, about which issue too I request seeking a resolution.) However, in my opinion, the decision is wrong in declaring that the appeals committee does not exist at all. (Taking our lesson, we should add to the charter that; All IGC appointments stand till replacements take office, or else are removed by due process. This I think is implied at present but can be made explicit.) parminder > > Ian > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > *Reply-To: *, "Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro" > *Date: *Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200 > *To: *, parminder > > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint > against MAG Nomination > > Dear Parminder, > > Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. > > To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the > Charter. The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that > every decision must be aligned to the Charter. > > The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at > that decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year > from when they were appointed. It is critical to note that under the > Charter, only the NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. > > Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that > were specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the > Charter, there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the > Appeal Team. > > On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current > NomCom to , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the > Appeal Team. When I said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not > exaggerating, I had to factor in the possibility of people complaining > about the Nom Com and so if that same NomCom were to select the Appeal > Team, there would be possibilities of "conflict:. > > Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom > is being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even > "renew" the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that > I was very impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his > ability to steer his Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for > steering through the reefs.] > > This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option > to activate the two months notification required for the selection of > a new Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. > > In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the > case has been in the past that there may have been lapses in > activating the NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on > their own(not by force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by > the Coordinators influence directly or indirectly or pressure must > when commissioned to select Appeal members) select the Appeal members > according to the rules and procedures prescribed in the Charter. > > Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is > certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to > put to the list. > > My comments are inline: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder > wrote: > > Dear Sala > > Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's > nomination to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I > concur) that, although there have been numerous procedural > problems with this nomcom process, it would not want its outcomes > to be nullified. > > > However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily > disposes off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the > appeals committee. > > > Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I > have no power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. > There are many lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained > above. > > The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes > from an authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible > abuse of power - whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the > most important task of the appeal's committee. Almost sounds like > a coup :). Well, only joking, in this instance. > > If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, > please provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me > the abuse. What specific provision within the Charter in your view was > violated. > > All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by > new ones. Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 > year period, till they are replaced by a new set. > > > Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have > been the case). In this instance there was no communications made by > the Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal > members. We were actively preparing to go through this process but as > I said each time I had to make a decision I was conscious of the > things that lay ahead and some decisions I made was made with that > holistic view in mind. I did say that with the narrow options > available, it's a tight rope. > > > And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same > way, till a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and > its practical need and importance should be obvious. > > The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs > revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals > members at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the > options available in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. > The complexity of the issue was excarcebated by the fact that people > were challenging the NomCom, who at this point in time is the only > option to be able to select or reselect an Appeals Team. With that in > jeopardy....[I will wait for discussions with Izumi and we will revert > to the list] > > In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal > committee is wrong. > > > The decision was based on the Charter. > > And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with > no appeals committee. > > > I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the > current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are > questioning the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a > tight rope, is it not? > > > An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator > incapacitated and no appeals committee looks like not a very good > situation for us to be.... > > This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter > that I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully > review current procedures and guidelines. > > I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this > respect. > > > You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team > which the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you > have attacked. Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a > nominee and had recused himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step > down as Coordinator if it is the will of the list. > > In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while > coordinators should start the process of selecting a new one at > the earliest. > > > That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My > recommendations are to review the Charter. > > Respectfully, > > parminder > > > On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear Imran, > > Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 > and the MAG NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on > February 16th, 2012, kindly find the decision on the complaint > that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. > > Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 01:08:16 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:08:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: <4F4B0ED7.5080209@itforchange.net> References: <4F4B0ED7.5080209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I'm torn between Ian and Parminder's both sensible comments. I think in practice we've always had committees run over their term, people have stayed (I think) until replaced. Better to try and make sure it doesn't happen again. Fouad should have been aware that as an appeals team member he wouldn't be eligible for nomination (note we were expecting MAG renewal last year when he was in the middle of his term on the appeals team.) Should make clear what volunteering for these positions means (and not intending to criticize Fouad for enthusiasm to help.) We need a better calendar to make sure committees are renewed. Should be automatic. Thanks, Adam On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Monday 27 February 2012 01:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > To me the key is this – should a member of the Appeals Team, whose term of > commitment for one year has expired, be allowed to stand for other office? > To me the answer is clearly yes. The only proviso would be that they then > stand down from Appeals Team if selected. As I understand it Fouad is quite > willing to do this if he has not done so already. > > So I have no problem at all with the decision, and I note Parminder is not > against the decision either. I think Sala’s decision was completely right > and will leave interpretation of the  Charter to others. > > > In my opinion Sala's decision may be right to the extent that we cannot *too > strictly* apply 'behaviour constraining' rules to a member of appeals > committee past the period for which it was first constituted, though due > diligence may require both the concerned member to have expressly > disassociated himself from the the committee and the co-coordinators to have > raised the issue. (Here again the 'problem' comes up that one of the two > co-coordinators - the more experienced one - was himself a nominee and > perhaps not in a position to do so, about which issue too I request seeking > a resolution.) > > However, in my opinion, the decision is wrong in declaring that the appeals > committee does not exist at all. > > (Taking our lesson, we should add to the charter that; All IGC appointments > stand till replacements take office, or else are removed by due process. > This I think is implied at present but can be made explicit.) > > parminder > > > Ian > > > ________________________________ > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200 > To: , parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG > Nomination > > Dear Parminder, > > Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. > > To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter. > The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision > must be aligned to the Charter. > > The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that > decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when they > were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only the > NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. > > Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that were > specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the Charter, > there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal Team. > > On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom to > , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. When I > said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had to > factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so if > that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be > possibilities of "conflict:. > > Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is > being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew" > the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very > impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his > Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the > reefs.] > > This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to > activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new > Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. > > In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case > has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the > NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by > force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators > influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to > select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and > procedures prescribed in the Charter. > > Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is > certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put to > the list. > > My comments are inline: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder > wrote: > > Dear Sala > > Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's nomination > to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur)  that, > although there have been numerous procedural problems with this nomcom > process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. > > > > However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes > off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee. > > > Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have no > power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are many > lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above. > > > The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an > authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power - > whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of the > appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this > instance. > > If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please > provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. > What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated. > > > All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new ones. > Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, till they > are replaced by a new set. > > > Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have been > the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the > Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. We > were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each time I > had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead and some > decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did say that > with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope. > > > > And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, till > a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical need > and importance should be obvious. > > The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs > revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members > at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available > in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the > issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, > who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or > reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for > discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list] > > > In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is > wrong. > > > The decision was based on the Charter. > > > And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no appeals > committee. > > > I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the > current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning > the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is it > not? > > > An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated > and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to > be.... > > This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter that > I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review > current procedures and guidelines. > > > I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. > > > You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team which > the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have attacked. > Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had recused > himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if it is > the will of the list. > > > In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators > should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. > > > That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My > recommendations are to review the Charter. > > Respectfully, > > parminder > > > On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear Imran, > > Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG > NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find > the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. > > Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 04:05:17 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:05:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: <4F4B0ED7.5080209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All, the appeals team ended October 2011. Its not my fault that IGC did not renew it. I was selected on that team in October 2010 and my term expired October 2011. Beyond that I have not expressed to serve on the appeals team and have no interest to do so. If I was on any committee, I would have resigned to continue my contributions on the MAG. Either way, I don't want to remain on any appeals team. Best Fouad On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > I'm torn between Ian and Parminder's both sensible comments. > > I think in practice we've always had committees run over their term, > people have stayed (I think) until replaced. > > Better to try and make sure it doesn't happen again.  Fouad should > have been aware that as an appeals team member he wouldn't be eligible > for nomination (note we were expecting MAG renewal last year when he > was in the middle of his term on the appeals team.)  Should make clear > what volunteering for these positions means (and not intending to > criticize Fouad for enthusiasm to help.) > > We need a better calendar to make sure committees are renewed. Should > be automatic. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Monday 27 February 2012 01:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> To me the key is this – should a member of the Appeals Team, whose term of >> commitment for one year has expired, be allowed to stand for other office? >> To me the answer is clearly yes. The only proviso would be that they then >> stand down from Appeals Team if selected. As I understand it Fouad is quite >> willing to do this if he has not done so already. >> >> So I have no problem at all with the decision, and I note Parminder is not >> against the decision either. I think Sala’s decision was completely right >> and will leave interpretation of the  Charter to others. >> >> >> In my opinion Sala's decision may be right to the extent that we cannot *too >> strictly* apply 'behaviour constraining' rules to a member of appeals >> committee past the period for which it was first constituted, though due >> diligence may require both the concerned member to have expressly >> disassociated himself from the the committee and the co-coordinators to have >> raised the issue. (Here again the 'problem' comes up that one of the two >> co-coordinators - the more experienced one - was himself a nominee and >> perhaps not in a position to do so, about which issue too I request seeking >> a resolution.) >> >> However, in my opinion, the decision is wrong in declaring that the appeals >> committee does not exist at all. >> >> (Taking our lesson, we should add to the charter that; All IGC appointments >> stand till replacements take office, or else are removed by due process. >> This I think is implied at present but can be made explicit.) >> >> parminder >> >> >> Ian >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> >> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200 >> To: , parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG >> Nomination >> >> Dear Parminder, >> >> Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. >> >> To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter. >> The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision >> must be aligned to the Charter. >> >> The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that >> decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when they >> were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only the >> NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. >> >> Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that were >> specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the Charter, >> there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal Team. >> >> On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom to >> , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. When I >> said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had to >> factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so if >> that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be >> possibilities of "conflict:. >> >> Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is >> being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew" >> the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very >> impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his >> Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the >> reefs.] >> >> This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to >> activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new >> Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. >> >> In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case >> has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the >> NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by >> force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators >> influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to >> select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and >> procedures prescribed in the Charter. >> >> Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is >> certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put to >> the list. >> >> My comments are inline: >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> Dear Sala >> >> Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's nomination >> to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur)  that, >> although there have been numerous procedural problems with this nomcom >> process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. >> >> >> >> However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes >> off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee. >> >> >> Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have no >> power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are many >> lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above. >> >> >> The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an >> authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power - >> whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of the >> appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this >> instance. >> >> If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please >> provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. >> What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated. >> >> >> All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new ones. >> Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, till they >> are replaced by a new set. >> >> >> Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have been >> the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the >> Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. We >> were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each time I >> had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead and some >> decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did say that >> with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope. >> >> >> >> And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, till >> a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical need >> and importance should be obvious. >> >> The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs >> revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members >> at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available >> in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the >> issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, >> who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or >> reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for >> discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list] >> >> >> In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is >> wrong. >> >> >> The decision was based on the Charter. >> >> >> And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no appeals >> committee. >> >> >> I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the >> current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning >> the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is it >> not? >> >> >> An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated >> and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to >> be.... >> >> This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter that >> I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review >> current procedures and guidelines. >> >> >> I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. >> >> >> You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team which >> the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have attacked. >> Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had recused >> himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if it is >> the will of the list. >> >> >> In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators >> should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. >> >> >> That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My >> recommendations are to review the Charter. >> >> Respectfully, >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear Imran, >> >> Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG >> NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find >> the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. >> >> Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Feb 27 04:40:20 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:40:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 - CIR? In-Reply-To: <4F4AB36F.3010702@cafonso.ca> References: <4F4A3ABE.3090208@cafonso.ca> <4F4A67C2.5090201@apc.org> <4F4AB36F.3010702@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4FFD8B3C-8DFC-4CE6-9EAE-742269DD28D6@uzh.ch> Hi On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I guess some of the people involved with IGC might be participating in > this week's CWG-WCIT in Geneva. It would be nice if we had a report in > this list after Feb.29, when the meeting ends. I'm on a train to a meeting in Bern so not me, and I'm unaware of any other IGC members. I believe Markus and maybe some other ISOC staff will attend. However, some ISOC, business, and government people plus myself will talk about WCIT at the workshop, ICANN and the Internet Governance Landscape, which will be held 17:30-19:00 Monday 12 March at the ICANN San Jose meeting. I assume there'll be a webcast if anyone's interested. > > On 02/26/2012 02:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >> >> At the MAG meeting sessions were discussed in far more detail, and I >> think that Bill Drake might have mentioned WCIT 2012 as being very >> important. I believe I did, before the chair pretty much stopped calling on observers. Whether this will be reflected in the next roll of the synthesis paper or be taken up in the CIR planning group is rather unknowable at this point, which goes to a larger set of issues that has been unfolding while this list's been preoccupied with other matters. This concerns how the working groups formed to plan the main sessions will be managed. The last couple years, the MAG meetings held in May formed MAG + groups that were open to non-MAG participation, which inter alia ended up meaning that Avri and I were able to join the WG planning the CIR session at Nairobi (which had been all TC and business) and advocate inclusion of a discussion of the IBSA enhanced cooperation proposal. That discussion proved to be a useful opportunity for stakeholders from around the world to provide feedback on an intergovernmental initiative—precisely the sort of thing the IGF mandate envisioned. In the same vein, one would think it useful for the IGF to provide stakeholders a chance to provide feedback on the WCIT's planned revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations, the result of a multi-year process that has gone on with little transparency and no multistakeholder participation. However, it's not clear whether we'll be in a position to advocate this or anything else as an alternative to the rather anodyne topics mentioned below. The February meeting of the outgoing MAG went ahead and appointed some of its members as WG facilitators (1 of 6 being CS) and is said to have agreed (although none of the CS people in attendance seems to have heard this discussion) that past practice will be jettisoned and the WGs will be open to MAG members only---notwithstanding CS' clear inability to populate six WGs with just a couple current MAG members. This has been the subject of some fairly intensive debate off list, and I gather the MAG is considering possible solutions. Perhaps our remaining MAG representatives would like to elaborate. Bottom line, there needs to be full and balanced MS participation in these working groups, and the Baku main sessions' agendas should not be set before we have representation either by new MAG members or non-MAGers who are in a position to effectively contribute to the work, both F2F in May and online. One would think that "no 3-legged chairs" should not be a controversial proposition... Best, Bill >> >> >> >> On 26/02/12 15:59, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Dear people, >>> >>> The February synthesis paper of the open consultations published in the >>> IGF official site mentions the following regarding "critical Internet >>> resources": >>> >>> --- begin doc citation --- >>> >>> 25. In terms of Critical Internet Resources it was seen by several >>> commentators that further debate is needed around issues such as the >>> institutional structure of IG, including the future of ICANN, IP >>> addressing, root servers and Internet exchange points. >>> >>> 26. Several suggestions were made for the Critical Internet Issues >>> theme, including, inter alia; >>> >>> • Best Practices for eliminating barriers to access to the Internet; >>> >>> • IPv6 and the impact and opportunities for the developing world that >>> may result from the transition to IPv6 and how does the coming depletion >>> of IPv4 addresses affect developing countries? >>> >>> • What is the effect of the deployment of multilingual domain names, >>> i.e. IDN.IDN? >>> >>> • Issues of ICANN's naming policy and the impact of the new gTLDs and >>> IDN gTLDs; >>> >>> • Technical issues such as DNS blocking and how such technical issues >>> drive or impact policy. >>> >>> --- end doc citation --- >>> >>> In light of the ongoing ITU process leading to WCIT 2012 aiming at, >>> among other goals, radically revising the 1988 ITR to try to take >>> account of the ICT challenges posed by the Internet, I think the above >>> points are far from sufficient. >>> >>> At a minimum, IGF's CIR "track" should include a review of the ITU >>> meetings' outcomes. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 04:44:11 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:44:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: <4F4B0ED7.5080209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Fouad, don't worry I don't think anyone is suggesting your name not go forward with the other nominees for the renewed MAG. But it's a good idea we make clear when advertising the various voluntary positons that people know what it means to offer to serve. Adam On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear All, the appeals team ended October 2011. Its not my fault that > IGC did not renew it. I was selected on that team in October 2010 and > my term expired October 2011. Beyond that I have not expressed to > serve on the appeals team and have no interest to do so. If I was on > any committee, I would have resigned to continue my contributions on > the MAG. > > Either way, I don't want to remain on any appeals team. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> I'm torn between Ian and Parminder's both sensible comments. >> >> I think in practice we've always had committees run over their term, >> people have stayed (I think) until replaced. >> >> Better to try and make sure it doesn't happen again.  Fouad should >> have been aware that as an appeals team member he wouldn't be eligible >> for nomination (note we were expecting MAG renewal last year when he >> was in the middle of his term on the appeals team.)  Should make clear >> what volunteering for these positions means (and not intending to >> criticize Fouad for enthusiasm to help.) >> >> We need a better calendar to make sure committees are renewed. Should >> be automatic. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Monday 27 February 2012 01:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> To me the key is this – should a member of the Appeals Team, whose term of >>> commitment for one year has expired, be allowed to stand for other office? >>> To me the answer is clearly yes. The only proviso would be that they then >>> stand down from Appeals Team if selected. As I understand it Fouad is quite >>> willing to do this if he has not done so already. >>> >>> So I have no problem at all with the decision, and I note Parminder is not >>> against the decision either. I think Sala’s decision was completely right >>> and will leave interpretation of the  Charter to others. >>> >>> >>> In my opinion Sala's decision may be right to the extent that we cannot *too >>> strictly* apply 'behaviour constraining' rules to a member of appeals >>> committee past the period for which it was first constituted, though due >>> diligence may require both the concerned member to have expressly >>> disassociated himself from the the committee and the co-coordinators to have >>> raised the issue. (Here again the 'problem' comes up that one of the two >>> co-coordinators - the more experienced one - was himself a nominee and >>> perhaps not in a position to do so, about which issue too I request seeking >>> a resolution.) >>> >>> However, in my opinion, the decision is wrong in declaring that the appeals >>> committee does not exist at all. >>> >>> (Taking our lesson, we should add to the charter that; All IGC appointments >>> stand till replacements take office, or else are removed by due process. >>> This I think is implied at present but can be made explicit.) >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>> Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>> >>> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200 >>> To: , parminder >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG >>> Nomination >>> >>> Dear Parminder, >>> >>> Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. >>> >>> To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter. >>> The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision >>> must be aligned to the Charter. >>> >>> The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that >>> decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when they >>> were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only the >>> NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. >>> >>> Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that were >>> specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the Charter, >>> there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal Team. >>> >>> On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom to >>> , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. When I >>> said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had to >>> factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so if >>> that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be >>> possibilities of "conflict:. >>> >>> Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is >>> being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew" >>> the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very >>> impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his >>> Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the >>> reefs.] >>> >>> This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to >>> activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new >>> Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. >>> >>> In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case >>> has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the >>> NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by >>> force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators >>> influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to >>> select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and >>> procedures prescribed in the Charter. >>> >>> Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is >>> certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put to >>> the list. >>> >>> My comments are inline: >>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Sala >>> >>> Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's nomination >>> to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur)  that, >>> although there have been numerous procedural problems with this nomcom >>> process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes >>> off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee. >>> >>> >>> Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have no >>> power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are many >>> lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above. >>> >>> >>> The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an >>> authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power - >>> whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of the >>> appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this >>> instance. >>> >>> If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please >>> provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. >>> What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated. >>> >>> >>> All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new ones. >>> Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, till they >>> are replaced by a new set. >>> >>> >>> Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have been >>> the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the >>> Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. We >>> were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each time I >>> had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead and some >>> decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did say that >>> with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope. >>> >>> >>> >>> And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, till >>> a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical need >>> and importance should be obvious. >>> >>> The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs >>> revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members >>> at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available >>> in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the >>> issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, >>> who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or >>> reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for >>> discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list] >>> >>> >>> In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is >>> wrong. >>> >>> >>> The decision was based on the Charter. >>> >>> >>> And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no appeals >>> committee. >>> >>> >>> I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the >>> current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning >>> the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is it >>> not? >>> >>> >>> An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated >>> and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to >>> be.... >>> >>> This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter that >>> I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review >>> current procedures and guidelines. >>> >>> >>> I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. >>> >>> >>> You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team which >>> the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have attacked. >>> Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had recused >>> himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if it is >>> the will of the list. >>> >>> >>> In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators >>> should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. >>> >>> >>> That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My >>> recommendations are to review the Charter. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> Dear Imran, >>> >>> Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG >>> NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find >>> the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. >>> >>> Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Mon Feb 27 04:56:45 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:56:45 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement re UN Human Rights Council In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Paul, Please ignore my previous comment about the suggested inclusion. I ask only that the IGF be replaced with the IGC. I think you really nailed it with this current draft and canvassed our concerns exquisitely. Thank you. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > I will also comment on the Workspace. I just want to add this bit from the > website: > > > > *The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of > the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally > agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, > and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet > governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. > Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, > will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal > opportunity and freedom for all.* > We can't speak for the IGF but we can raise our views as the IGC. > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no >> easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous >> issues to a cohesive succint statement. >> >> The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments >> and contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap >> this up in time by at least the 28th February, 2012. >> >> Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:20 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> I don't think we can speak for the entire IGF. >>> >>> I think it can be cut down by about 50%. We don't need to reference >>> evangelists or the SOPA/PIPA bills for example. >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> >>> >>> On 2/26/12, Paul Lehto wrote: >>> > Below is a brief statement on "Human Rights on the Internet". I have >>> to go >>> > offline for two and a half hours but then will be back online in case >>> > anyone has comments, questions or additions to the text below. At that >>> > point I would hope to make some changes if any are suggested, then >>> have it >>> > posted for comment. In general, I didn't like the title "Human >>> Rights on >>> > the Internet" because it makes as little sense to me as raising the >>> > question of human rights on the mountains or in the valleys, or on the >>> > oceans, etc. Human rights exist everywhere, including the internet. >>> The >>> > question is the constant need to keep awareness of them high >>> > >>> > *Human Rights on the Internet * >>> > >>> > Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their >>> > technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology >>> without >>> > borders. >>> > >>> > The open architecture of the Internet facilitates and enhances many >>> > pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free >>> > expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly, >>> > creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to >>> the >>> > culture of society. Internet technology and design choices >>> simultaneously >>> > extends human interaction in multiple directions regardless of >>> borders, at >>> > a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously >>> imaginable. >>> > >>> > This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of >>> the >>> > Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about >>> the >>> > Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled >>> by >>> > already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought >>> > leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as >>> > “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have >>> > caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining >>> > democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant >>> life” for >>> > all, without the prominent downsides often associated with actual some >>> > implementations of government and religion. >>> > >>> > If the Internet, as a network of networks, is a great force for human >>> > flourishing, and if humans have the inborn desire to flourish under >>> > conditions of self-determination, the most powerful question to ask >>> > concerning rights on the Internet is not so much where these rights >>> arise >>> > from, or how they may be further enforced in ancient courts, but where >>> any >>> > claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises >>> from, >>> > and how such a right of interference can be legitimately asserted and >>> > enforced. Given that the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate >>> > behaviors often called rights and freedoms, and given that the >>> Internet as >>> > a whole is owner-less and international, how can any business, >>> government, >>> > or person both obtain a right to interfere with the freedom of the >>> > Internet, and also legitimately enforce that right? In this light, any >>> > lack of clarity deemed to exist by some regarding where human rights >>> “come >>> > from” pales in comparison to the difficulties of coherently positing >>> and >>> > persuading others of a right to interfere with the freedom of others >>> on the >>> > Internet. To the extent such interference becomes known publicly, it >>> will >>> > be highly likely to suffer the same fate as SOPA and PIPA legislation >>> > recently did, because any such right to interfere with inherent human >>> > rights and freedom is far more difficult to successfully theorize and >>> > explain than the human rights we all want for ourselves, but may or >>> may not >>> > extend to all others equally. >>> > >>> > Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be >>> interfered >>> > with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including >>> > businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, >>> > administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make >>> more >>> > choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on >>> the >>> > Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the >>> > Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much >>> > “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. >>> Regardless >>> > of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is >>> > extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are >>> acting in >>> > ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully >>> > understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the >>> public >>> > interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to >>> impair >>> > or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to >>> claim >>> > that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or >>> > otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case >>> of a >>> > business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or >>> censor >>> > content, etc.) >>> > >>> > Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal >>> rules of >>> > host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human >>> rights >>> > laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that >>> > domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc., >>> should be >>> > met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single >>> > country. >>> > >>> > In the general context of market freedom, the development of new >>> > technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their >>> > regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some >>> form of >>> > regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities >>> > without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in >>> the >>> > countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and >>> expansion >>> > on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep >>> pace. >>> > This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers >>> and >>> > others who are creating the Internet in real time. >>> > >>> > The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of >>> education >>> > concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in >>> the >>> > context of the Internet, because important structural and design >>> decisions >>> > regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet >>> > engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where >>> it is >>> > impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct >>> > effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes >>> place >>> > in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers >>> > making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and >>> knowledge of >>> > human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially >>> critical to >>> > preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about >>> human >>> > rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can >>> be >>> > decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of >>> > potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any >>> centralized >>> > ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. >>> > >>> > Therefore, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) declares that the >>> Internet >>> > is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human >>> > freedoms and equality, the IGF condemns violations of human rights on >>> the >>> > Internet and wherever they may occur, and the IGF calls upon the United >>> > Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education >>> about >>> > human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users >>> of the >>> > Internet can maximize for all the value of the Internet as an >>> enhancement >>> > of the human experience, making ever more real the human flourishing >>> that >>> > is both the reality and the promise of the Internet. >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 05:19:15 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:19:15 +0500 Subject: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG Nomination In-Reply-To: References: <4F4B0ED7.5080209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: +1 Fouad On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Fouad, don't worry I don't think anyone is suggesting your name not go > forward with the other nominees for the renewed MAG.  But it's a good > idea we make clear when advertising the various voluntary positons > that people know what it means to offer to serve. > > Adam > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Dear All, the appeals team ended October 2011. Its not my fault that >> IGC did not renew it. I was selected on that team in October 2010 and >> my term expired October 2011. Beyond that I have not expressed to >> serve on the appeals team and have no interest to do so. If I was on >> any committee, I would have resigned to continue my contributions on >> the MAG. >> >> Either way, I don't want to remain on any appeals team. >> >> Best >> >> Fouad >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> I'm torn between Ian and Parminder's both sensible comments. >>> >>> I think in practice we've always had committees run over their term, >>> people have stayed (I think) until replaced. >>> >>> Better to try and make sure it doesn't happen again.  Fouad should >>> have been aware that as an appeals team member he wouldn't be eligible >>> for nomination (note we were expecting MAG renewal last year when he >>> was in the middle of his term on the appeals team.)  Should make clear >>> what volunteering for these positions means (and not intending to >>> criticize Fouad for enthusiasm to help.) >>> >>> We need a better calendar to make sure committees are renewed. Should >>> be automatic. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday 27 February 2012 01:23 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To me the key is this – should a member of the Appeals Team, whose term of >>>> commitment for one year has expired, be allowed to stand for other office? >>>> To me the answer is clearly yes. The only proviso would be that they then >>>> stand down from Appeals Team if selected. As I understand it Fouad is quite >>>> willing to do this if he has not done so already. >>>> >>>> So I have no problem at all with the decision, and I note Parminder is not >>>> against the decision either. I think Sala’s decision was completely right >>>> and will leave interpretation of the  Charter to others. >>>> >>>> >>>> In my opinion Sala's decision may be right to the extent that we cannot *too >>>> strictly* apply 'behaviour constraining' rules to a member of appeals >>>> committee past the period for which it was first constituted, though due >>>> diligence may require both the concerned member to have expressly >>>> disassociated himself from the the committee and the co-coordinators to have >>>> raised the issue. (Here again the 'problem' comes up that one of the two >>>> co-coordinators - the more experienced one - was himself a nominee and >>>> perhaps not in a position to do so, about which issue too I request seeking >>>> a resolution.) >>>> >>>> However, in my opinion, the decision is wrong in declaring that the appeals >>>> committee does not exist at all. >>>> >>>> (Taking our lesson, we should add to the charter that; All IGC appointments >>>> stand till replacements take office, or else are removed by due process. >>>> This I think is implied at present but can be made explicit.) >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>> Reply-To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>> >>>> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:30:11 +1200 >>>> To: , parminder >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Decision [Imran Ahmed Shah] Complaint against MAG >>>> Nomination >>>> >>>> Dear Parminder, >>>> >>>> Come, let us reason together and dialogue around the Charter. >>>> >>>> To set a bit of context please note that I was only applying the Charter. >>>> The IGC is subject to the Charter, it therefore follows that every decision >>>> must be aligned to the Charter. >>>> >>>> The Charter expressly states, and I mentioned it in my arriving at that >>>> decision that the Appeals Team's tenure or term is for a year from when they >>>> were appointed. It is critical to note that under the Charter, only the >>>> NomCom can appoint the Appeals Team. >>>> >>>> Kindly note that there is currently only one NomCom at the moment that were >>>> specifically tasked with selecting the MAG Nominees. Under the Charter, >>>> there are several ways to appoint the NomCom to select the Appeal Team. >>>> >>>> On one hand there is the possibility of commissioning the current NomCom to >>>> , aside from selecting the MAG Nominees, to appoint the Appeal Team. When I >>>> said, that I was walking a tight rope, I was not exaggerating, I had to >>>> factor in the possibility of people complaining about the Nom Com and so if >>>> that same NomCom were to select the Appeal Team, there would be >>>> possibilities of "conflict:. >>>> >>>> Then the other consideration is that where the integrity of the NomCom is >>>> being questioned, it invalidates their potential capacity to even "renew" >>>> the Appeal Team or select a new Appeal Team. [I will say that I was very >>>> impressed with Tom's leadership in the NomCom and his ability to steer his >>>> Team and warmly congratulate him and his team for steering through the >>>> reefs.] >>>> >>>> This could potentially mean leaving the Coordinators with the option to >>>> activate the two months notification required for the selection of a new >>>> Appeal Team where we are unable to use the current NomCom. >>>> >>>> In fact every year the Appeals Team should be selected, I suspect the case >>>> has been in the past that there may have been lapses in activating the >>>> NomCom to select new Appeal members or the NomCom on their own(not by >>>> force/coercision of the list, and most of all not by the Coordinators >>>> influence directly or indirectly or pressure must when commissioned to >>>> select Appeal members) select the Appeal members according to the rules and >>>> procedures prescribed in the Charter. >>>> >>>> Izumi and I will be having our monthly meeting tomorrow and this is >>>> certainly something on the Agenda. We have not made a decision yet to put to >>>> the list. >>>> >>>> My comments are inline: >>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM, parminder >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Sala >>>> >>>> Let me first state that, as a fait accompli, I would like Fouad's nomination >>>> to stand as I suspect that it is the IGC's wish (and I concur)  that, >>>> although there have been numerous procedural problems with this nomcom >>>> process, it would not want its outcomes to be nullified. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However, I am unable to agree with your judgement which summarily disposes >>>> off one of most important institutions of the IGC - the appeals committee. >>>> >>>> >>>> Correction: I did not dispose of the Appeal Team. The Charter did. I have no >>>> power to dispose of the Appeal Team, only the Charter can. There are many >>>> lawyers on this list, I am sure. I have also explained above. >>>> >>>> >>>> The judgement, in my view, is also unmaintainable because it comes from an >>>> authority, an IGC co-coordinator, to check whose possible abuse of power - >>>> whether deliberate or inadvertent - is one of the most important task of the >>>> appeal's committee. Almost sounds like a coup :). Well, only joking, in this >>>> instance. >>>> >>>> If you accuse me for abusing my power when I applied the Charter, please >>>> provide for a specific provision within the Charter to show me the abuse. >>>> What specific provision within the Charter in your view was violated. >>>> >>>> >>>> All IGC office bearers have stood in their office till replaced by new ones. >>>> Coordinators have often taken decisions past their 2 year period, till they >>>> are replaced by a new set. >>>> >>>> >>>> Was this because the NomCom renewed their appointments? (This may have been >>>> the case). In this instance there was no communications made by the >>>> Coordinators to activate the re-selection or selection of Appeal members. We >>>> were actively preparing to go through this process but as I said each time I >>>> had to make a decision I was conscious of the things that lay ahead and some >>>> decisions I made was made with that holistic view in mind. I did say that >>>> with the narrow options available, it's a tight rope. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And appeals committees have also previously continued in the same way, till >>>> a new one is appointed. This is the IGC convention, and its practical need >>>> and importance should be obvious. >>>> >>>> The Charter says otherwise. This is why the Charter, in my view needs >>>> revising to allow for an ad hoc process to select temporary Appeals members >>>> at least until the new one is appointed. Remember of the options available >>>> in terms of selection of NomComs, we only have one. The complexity of the >>>> issue was excarcebated by the fact that people were challenging the NomCom, >>>> who at this point in time is the only option to be able to select or >>>> reselect an Appeals Team. With that in jeopardy....[I will wait for >>>> discussions with Izumi and we will revert to the list] >>>> >>>> >>>> In the view, I think, your judgement disposing off the appeal committee is >>>> wrong. >>>> >>>> >>>> The decision was based on the Charter. >>>> >>>> >>>> And it is dangerous to the extent that we are right now left with no appeals >>>> committee. >>>> >>>> >>>> I agree but the closest option to re-selecting the Appeals Team is the >>>> current NomCom and in questioning the current NomCom, you are questioning >>>> the capacity to come up with legitimate decisions. It is a tight rope, is it >>>> not? >>>> >>>> >>>> An unsure and unclear nomcom with one of the two coordinator incapacitated >>>> and no appeals committee looks like not a very good situation for us to >>>> be.... >>>> >>>> This is not the first procedural matter or administrative legal matter that >>>> I have dealt with and in fact is very simple. We need to fully review >>>> current procedures and guidelines. >>>> >>>> >>>> I would request you, and Izumi, to amend your judgement in this respect. >>>> >>>> >>>> You are asking me to go against the Charter and renew the Appeals team which >>>> the only legitimate entity to do this is the NomCom which you have attacked. >>>> Izumi in this instance cannot amend it as he is a nominee and had recused >>>> himself of the matter. I am ao happy to step down as Coordinator if it is >>>> the will of the list. >>>> >>>> >>>> In my view the appeals committee exists as present, while coordinators >>>> should start the process of selecting a new one at the earliest. >>>> >>>> >>>> That's just the thing, it's not about our view, it's the Charter. My >>>> recommendations are to review the Charter. >>>> >>>> Respectfully, >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday 16 February 2012 06:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Imran, >>>> >>>> Further to your complaint that you sent on February 2nd, 2012 and the MAG >>>> NomCom Report sent to the list yesterday on February 16th, 2012, kindly find >>>> the decision on the complaint that was raised on the 2nd February, 2012. >>>> >>>> Let me know if you would like to discuss the same. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 05:34:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:34:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance for Development [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Grateful if we could wrap up the discussions under this thread and have * someone* consolidate it so that Fouad can take it on this his group. Here are my contributions: *A. Broadband - Catalyst for Growth* Most countries, particularly in emerging markets and developing countries still do not have broadband policies etc and could learn a thing or two from the countries that are leading in this area particularly in light of various global shocks to the various economies etc and broadband is proven to be directly linked to economic growth. It would be good to see a panel of at least the countries that are leading according to 2011's IDI ranking. Broadband is directly linked to social, and economic sustainability. As such I would suggest this theme: [There are many sub themes that can stem from these including:- - Policy Considerations; - From Rags to Riches [eg. of countries who have climbed out of poverty] - Stimulus - how to deal with the challenges *B. Policy Coherence in Developing Countries* *C. Information Societies and the link to Development* On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi, > > In the end I will still have to consolidate information from a variety > of sources where the information is being contributed from as this is > a multistakeholder activity and contributions are also coming from > outside the IGC so it would be convenient for all to contribute to the > pirate pad / ether pad. > > IGC members can freely contribute to this thread or etherpad, no issue. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Whilst the pirate pad is good, we would like to be able to archive > threads > > of things that are discussed etc. For these purposes, we encourage > dialogue > > via the mailing list which will then be consolidated and put back to the > > list through the Statement workspace. > > > > This of course does'nt stop you from using the pirate pad and then > > transferring your dialogue to the list of course by the 23rd where it > will > > be consolidated with other contributions of course. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> I invite everyone interested in contributing to the IG4D Main Session > >> planning/development to access the Pirate Pad live wiki sheet at > >> > >> http://piratepad.net/qmUopmWaLr > >> > >> This is the most convenient way to edit with simply typing in. Kindly > >> note that once you are on the page, kindly add your name on the right > >> box so a color highlight is included with your text. > >> > >> -- > >> Regards. > >> -------------------------- > >> Fouad Bajwa > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 05:41:35 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:41:35 +1200 Subject: [governance] Access and Diversity [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Could we please have someone wrap this up and consolidate it before this is sent to the current MAG members to send to the MAG? Kind Regards, On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Yuliya Morenets < y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu> wrote: > Le 25/2/2012, "Deirdre Williams" a écrit: > > >So can we speak to 'vulnerable people' generally and provide sub-headings > >to identify them? > > I think yes, and it will allow to speak and raise the issues for > different categories of vulnerable people. > > >The trouble is that 'vulnerable' is such a huge word. Each of us is > >vulnerable at some time for some reason. > > It's true, but I'd take the definition as proposed in Geneva > Declaration and Tunis Agenda for example, to start the discussion. > > Yuliya > > >On 25 February 2012 03:30, Yuliya Morenets > >wrote: > > > >> Dear Sala, Dear all, > >> > >> We strongly believe that the issues of the participation of vulnerable > >> people in the Information Society and their voice should be raised and > >> we propose to include this under "Access and Diversity". > >> > >> > >> Kind regards, Yuliya > >> TaC-Together against Cybercrime > >> > >> Le 23/2/2012, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > >> a écrit: > >> > >> >Hi everyone, > >> > > >> >Let me know if you would like to add additional thoughts etc. > Volunteers > >> >are still needed to consolidate the themes etc to make it more coherent > >> and > >> >will soon put it back to the list through the Statement Workspace for > the > >> >rough consensus call before it is put to the MAG. > >> > > >> >Kind Regards, > >> >Sala > >> > > >> >On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > >> >salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Tim Davies < > >> >> tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Hello Imran and others, > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm also uncomfortable if we frame 'Internet for Kids' as creating > some > >> >>> sort of separate tightly filtered Internet. I would see the task of > >> >>> focussing on the Internet for Children much more as a question of > >> ensuring > >> >>> there is positive content available to children in engaging online > and > >> >>> making positive choices, rather than adults choosing to control > >> children's > >> >>> and young people's access to information with filtered online > spaces. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> Excellent point Tim. I like this approach. > >> >> > >> >> Perhaps if I could invite volunteers to work on consolidating the > >> >> comments and themes that have surfaced so we can get some level of > >> >> consensus. This is so we can prepare to send our thoughts. We will > then > >> put > >> >> it to the list for a consensus call. > >> >> > >> >> I think a language of Children's Rights is useful here, and the ideas > >> >>> Imran suggest below, might fit into the proposal I put in the Human > >> Rights > >> >>> thread for reframing 'Child Protection' as a 'Children's Rights' > >> thread. > >> >>> Below is what I said in that thread about the value in taking a > >> Children's > >> >>> Rights approach to these issues: > >> >>> > >> >>> "On the suggestion for (11) on 'Online child protection', I would > >> really > >> >>> like to see this framed as 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision > >> and > >> >>> Participation', rather than solely 'child protection', particularly > as > >> this > >> >>> is falling under a 'human rights' heading. > >> >>> > >> >>> I've written a bit on the justification for this at > >> >>> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23226/ - but essentially, when we > adopt > >> >>> narrow narratives of 'online child protection' we end up (a) > neglecting > >> >>> children and young people's broader set of rights to be active > >> >>> participants on the web, and to safe and supportive online > provision; > >> and > >> >>> (b) we adopt counter-productive strategies which don't even serve > the > >> >>> intended goals of keeping young people safe from harm online. " > >> >>> > >> >>> All the best > >> >>> > >> >>> Tim > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Fatima Cambronero < > >> >>> fatimacambronero at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 2012/2/21 McTim > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> On 2/21/12, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> >>>>> > Thanks Sala for your comments, > >> >>>>> > This idea is derived from one of my friend/collegue, and we were > >> >>>>> discussing > >> >>>>> > that it is very hard to configure kids PCs for safe online > surfing, > >> >>>>> > configuring the Firewall and Parental Protection kind of > things, or > >> >>>>> using > >> >>>>> > the Kids-Safe-Online utilities individually obtained. Why not we > >> >>>>> devise some > >> >>>>> > governance for the provisioning of allowing just a single > browser > >> to > >> >>>>> Kids > >> >>>>> > Login, and a dedicated Search Engine that could provide the > >> >>>>> confidence of > >> >>>>> > Certified Clean Websites only related to the Kids. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Wouldn't this violate their Human Rights? (Access to > >> >>>>> Knowledge/Information/Right to Communicate). > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> And what about their privacy? Do children have no Right to Privacy? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> From what age do children acquire the right to privacy? > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Fatima > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -- > >> >>>>> 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 > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> *Fatima Cambronero* > >> >>>> Abogada-Argentina > >> >>>> Directora de Investigaciones > >> >>>> *AGEIA DENSI Argentina* > >> >>>> http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> *@facambronero* > >> >>>> > >> >>>> *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* > >> >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> >>>> > >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> http://www.timdavies.org.uk > >> >>> 07834 856 303. > >> >>> @timdavies > >> >>> > >> >>> Co-director of Practical Participation: > >> >>> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk > >> >>> -------------------------- > >> >>> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and > >> Wales > >> >>> - #5381958. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> >> > >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> >> Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> >-- > >> >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> > > >> >Tweeter: @SalanietaT > >> >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> >Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 05:44:27 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:44:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear All, If there are no further contributions to this thread, we will have to wrap up the suggestions and consolidate to send to the current MAG members. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message - --------- > From: Louis Pouzin (well) > Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17 > Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Hi Sala, > > I'd be interested in a sub-theme within managing critical internet > resources: > > *Multiple name spaces in internet* > - diversity of language scripts > - regional spaces > - brand names management > - diversisty of jurisdictions > - directory structures > - name collisions > - scopes > - inter-operability > - (more) > > Worth a workshop with a half dozen stakeholders. > > I agree with Louis' suggestion. I hav > > Cheers > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Sala, >> >> My 2 cents: I see 3 topics here not 5: >> >> 1) IXPs & MIGRATION OF RESOURCES >>> >> >> - Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared Lessons] >> - >> - Getting various stakeholders within developing countries >> particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater >> cohesion in the area of policy; >> - It will be good to see various regulatory practices around the >> world etc >> >> >> 2) [SMART GRIDS] & INTERNET OF THINGS >> - >> >> Personally I call this category - wireless grids. fyi we are on track >> towards releasing version 0.1 open specs March 26 @ TEDxHarlem. Anyway, >> smart grids, generally speaking, aren't that smart; and the 'things' in >> isolation are just - things. So real issue is how does one share resources >> among grids and things; and not pretend all life will be in the cloud so >> who needs to worry our pretty little heads about who controls what - >> resources, including things. >> >> In sum, imho these 2 together are more interesting and relevant for IGF >> than either alone, which odds are would turn into corporate sales pitches >> for particular big brands...in the usual suspect category >> >> >> 3) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF >>> PUBLIC INTEREST >>> >>> >>> (Sounds good to me; though I wonder what our ITU friends will think >>> of IGF engaging on spectrum allocation ; ) >>> >> >> >> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 05:46:58 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:46:58 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will assume that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, > Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with > the following:- > > - consolidate the list of topics under the theme > - come up with a coherent description of the theme > - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme > (following the way it was organised in 2011) > > We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Taking > Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would like to > ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the > list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can > volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so > it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our > current MAG representatives to take this forward. > > Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as follows:- > > > 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? > > 2) IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA > > 3) ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET > > 4) SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 05:48:25 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:48:25 +1200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights: Security, Openness and Privacy [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, If there are no further views, we are now in the process of wrapping things up. Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Tim Davies < > tim at practicalparticipation.co.uk> wrote: > >> Hello all, (and many thanks Sala for providing these threads and >> co-ordinating this all) >> >> A few quick views: >> >> ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE; INTERNET AS TOOL OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION >> I'm particularly interested in the 'Access to Knowledge' and 'Internet as >> a tool of public consultations' themes, although for the later, I would >> suggest framing it as 'Internet as a tool of public /participation/' rather >> than /consultation/ would be better - to capture the diverse range of ways >> in which the Internet is a tool for connecting governments, governance and >> citizens. >> >> ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION: >> On the suggestion for (11) on 'Online child protection', I would really >> like to see this framed as 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision and >> Participation', rather than solely 'child protection', particularly as this >> is falling under a 'human rights' heading. >> >> I've written a bit on the justification for this at >> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/23226/ - but essentially, when we adopt >> narrow narratives of 'online child protection' we end up (a) neglecting >> children and young people's broader set of rights to be active participants >> on the web, and to safe and supportive online provision; and (b) we adopt >> counter-productive strategies which don't even serve the intended goals of >> keeping young people safe from harm online. >> >> Personally I'd love to see some good engagement in a theme like this >> between IGF and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child ( >> http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/), but I've not succeeded in >> the past at working out how best to make that happen: all thoughts welcome. >> >> I agree. It will be good to coordinate between different regions on how > to make this happen. We can start bottom up as well. We can try through > UNICEF etc. > >> All the best >> >> Tim >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >>> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with >>> the following:- >>> >>> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >>> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >>> (following the way it was organised in 2011) >>> >>> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on *[HUMAN >>> RIGHTS:] SECURITY, OPENNESS AND PRIVACY [AND THEIR IMPACT ON HUMAN RIGHTS] >>> *by responding to this thread. We would like to ensure that this >>> opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the list. We will try >>> to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can volunteer to work >>> on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it can be put to >>> the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current MAG >>> representatives to take this forward. >>> >>> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >>> follows:- >>> >>> >>> 1) HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE INTERNET >>> >>> 2) FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION >>> >>> 3) LEGAL FRAMEWORK REGULATING FREE FLOW >>> >>> 4) [FILTERING] >>> >>> 5) FRAMEWORKS AND PRINCIPLES, >>> >>> 6) INTERNET FRAGMENTATION >>> >>> 7) INFORMATION SUPPRESSION AND SURVEILLANCE >>> >>> 8) CROSS-BORDER DATA FLOW >>> >>> 9) ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE >>> >>> 10) CYBERSECURITY, CYBERCRIME AND CLOUD COMPUTING >>> >>> 11) ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION >>> >>> 12) INTERACTION WITH INDUSTRY / COOPERATION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR AND LAW >>> ENFORCEMENT IN BALANCE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS >>> >>> 13) SAFEGUARDS >>> >>> 14) [INTERNET AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY] / >>> [INTERNET AS A TOOL OF PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS] >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> http://www.timdavies.org.uk >> 07834 856 303. >> @timdavies >> >> Co-director of Practical Participation: >> http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk >> -------------------------- >> Practical Participation Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales >> - #5381958. >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 27 05:55:54 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:55:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Indeed Sala, I do not think there are comments SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/27 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear All, > > If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will assume > that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with >> the following:- >> >> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >> (following the way it was organised in 2011) >> >> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Taking >> Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would like to >> ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the >> list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can >> volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so >> it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our >> current MAG representatives to take this forward. >> >> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >> follows:- >> >> >> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >> >> 2) IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA >> >> 3) ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET >> >> 4) SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 06:17:19 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:17:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] Invitation to join Webinar on Online freedom of expression - Tuesday, 28th February In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Some of you may recall that we had some lively discussions on Freedom of Expression last year. This is just to advise that I will be speaking at a Webinar tomorrow, details are below. The views expressed in the Webinar will be strictly mine as an individual. Feel free to register if you are free. Details are below: ** ** **** **** *Webinars***** *www.diplomacy.edu***** **** Dear colleagues,**** We are pleased to invite you to attend our Internet governance webinar:**** *Online Freedom of Expression ** ***** The Internet is a powerful tool of communication, which online users can use to exercise their right to freedom of expression. However, what happens when the right to freedom of expression is violated? Or when it is confronted with other human rights provisions, such as privacy or intellectual property? And who determines the balance? Join us on Tuesday, 28th February, at 08:00 GMT. Our special host is *Sala T. Tamanikaiwaimaro*, co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). More info is available here .**** * Reminder: Join our IG webinars group * **** Our Internet governance webinars have become a regular appointment. Every last Tuesday of the month, a special guest hosts a discussion on the most pressing issues and the main developments in the IG world. If you would like to receive news, announcements, and follow-up e-mails regarding our IG webinars, subscribe to our IG webinars group .**** *Diplo's Webinar Team** www.diplomacy.edu***** [image: spacer]**** **** *DiploTeam***** © [image: Diplo Logo] DiploFoundation **** **** ** ** ** ** -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 06:19:29 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:19:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? I still think it would be interesting to consider as well as this topic "How are the rules for the Internet set". Awareness of the process often leads to identification of the responsible actors. Deirdre On 27 February 2012 06:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will assume > that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with >> the following:- >> >> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >> (following the way it was organised in 2011) >> >> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Taking >> Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would like to >> ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the >> list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can >> volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so >> it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our >> current MAG representatives to take this forward. >> >> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >> follows:- >> >> >> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >> >> 2) IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA >> >> 3) ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET >> >> 4) SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 06:24:20 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:24:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree Deirdre On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? > I still think it would be interesting to consider as well as this topic > "How are the rules for the Internet set". Awareness of the process often > leads to identification of the responsible actors. > Deirdre > > On 27 February 2012 06:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will assume >> that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >>> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with >>> the following:- >>> >>> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >>> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >>> (following the way it was organised in 2011) >>> >>> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Taking >>> Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would like to >>> ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the >>> list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can >>> volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so >>> it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our >>> current MAG representatives to take this forward. >>> >>> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >>> follows:- >>> >>> >>> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>> >>> 2) IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA >>> >>> 3) ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET >>> >>> 4) SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 06:35:10 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:35:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 - CIR? In-Reply-To: <4FFD8B3C-8DFC-4CE6-9EAE-742269DD28D6@uzh.ch> References: <4F4A3ABE.3090208@cafonso.ca> <4F4A67C2.5090201@apc.org> <4F4AB36F.3010702@cafonso.ca> <4FFD8B3C-8DFC-4CE6-9EAE-742269DD28D6@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4F4B6A6E.2020407@cafonso.ca> Yes, I do know ISOC is participating. I will try to be in the San José workshop you mention. frt rgds --c.a. On 02/27/2012 06:40 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Feb 26, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> I guess some of the people involved with IGC might be participating >> in this week's CWG-WCIT in Geneva. It would be nice if we had a >> report in this list after Feb.29, when the meeting ends. > > I'm on a train to a meeting in Bern so not me, and I'm unaware of any > other IGC members. I believe Markus and maybe some other ISOC staff > will attend. However, some ISOC, business, and government people > plus myself will talk about WCIT at the workshop, ICANN and the > Internet Governance Landscape, which will be held 17:30-19:00 Monday > 12 March at the ICANN San Jose meeting. I assume there'll be a > webcast if anyone's interested. >> >> On 02/26/2012 02:11 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> >>> >>> At the MAG meeting sessions were discussed in far more detail, >>> and I think that Bill Drake might have mentioned WCIT 2012 as >>> being very important. > > I believe I did, before the chair pretty much stopped calling on > observers. Whether this will be reflected in the next roll of the > synthesis paper or be taken up in the CIR planning group is rather > unknowable at this point, which goes to a larger set of issues that > has been unfolding while this list's been preoccupied with other > matters. This concerns how the working groups formed to plan the > main sessions will be managed. > > The last couple years, the MAG meetings held in May formed MAG + > groups that were open to non-MAG participation, which inter alia > ended up meaning that Avri and I were able to join the WG planning > the CIR session at Nairobi (which had been all TC and business) and > advocate inclusion of a discussion of the IBSA enhanced cooperation > proposal. That discussion proved to be a useful opportunity for > stakeholders from around the world to provide feedback on an > intergovernmental initiative—precisely the sort of thing the IGF > mandate envisioned. In the same vein, one would think it useful for > the IGF to provide stakeholders a chance to provide feedback on the > WCIT's planned revision of the International Telecommunication > Regulations, the result of a multi-year process that has gone on with > little transparency and no multistakeholder participation. > > However, it's not clear whether we'll be in a position to advocate > this or anything else as an alternative to the rather anodyne topics > mentioned below. The February meeting of the outgoing MAG went ahead > and appointed some of its members as WG facilitators (1 of 6 being > CS) and is said to have agreed (although none of the CS people in > attendance seems to have heard this discussion) that past practice > will be jettisoned and the WGs will be open to MAG members > only---notwithstanding CS' clear inability to populate six WGs with > just a couple current MAG members. This has been the subject of some > fairly intensive debate off list, and I gather the MAG is considering > possible solutions. Perhaps our remaining MAG representatives would > like to elaborate. > > Bottom line, there needs to be full and balanced MS participation in > these working groups, and the Baku main sessions' agendas should not > be set before we have representation either by new MAG members or > non-MAGers who are in a position to effectively contribute to the > work, both F2F in May and online. One would think that "no 3-legged > chairs" should not be a controversial proposition... > > Best, > > Bill > >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26/02/12 15:59, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> The February synthesis paper of the open consultations >>>> published in the IGF official site mentions the following >>>> regarding "critical Internet resources": >>>> >>>> --- begin doc citation --- >>>> >>>> 25. In terms of Critical Internet Resources it was seen by >>>> several commentators that further debate is needed around >>>> issues such as the institutional structure of IG, including the >>>> future of ICANN, IP addressing, root servers and Internet >>>> exchange points. >>>> >>>> 26. Several suggestions were made for the Critical Internet >>>> Issues theme, including, inter alia; >>>> >>>> • Best Practices for eliminating barriers to access to the >>>> Internet; >>>> >>>> • IPv6 and the impact and opportunities for the developing >>>> world that may result from the transition to IPv6 and how does >>>> the coming depletion of IPv4 addresses affect developing >>>> countries? >>>> >>>> • What is the effect of the deployment of multilingual domain >>>> names, i.e. IDN.IDN? >>>> >>>> • Issues of ICANN's naming policy and the impact of the new >>>> gTLDs and IDN gTLDs; >>>> >>>> • Technical issues such as DNS blocking and how such technical >>>> issues drive or impact policy. >>>> >>>> --- end doc citation --- >>>> >>>> In light of the ongoing ITU process leading to WCIT 2012 aiming >>>> at, among other goals, radically revising the 1988 ITR to try >>>> to take account of the ICT challenges posed by the Internet, I >>>> think the above points are far from sufficient. >>>> >>>> At a minimum, IGF's CIR "track" should include a review of the >>>> ITU meetings' outcomes. >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and >> to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Feb 27 07:00:39 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:00:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Sala Please include: WCIT and the ITRs Enhanced cooperation, and other intergovernmental initiatives (e.g. China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) Progress and impact of new gTLDs Territoriality and jurisdiction over CIRs Thanks Bill On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > If there are no further contributions to this thread, we will have to wrap up the suggestions and consolidate to send to the current MAG members. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message - --------- > From: Louis Pouzin (well) > Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17 > Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Hi Sala, > > I'd be interested in a sub-theme within managing critical internet resources: > > Multiple name spaces in internet > - diversity of language scripts > - regional spaces > - brand names management > - diversisty of jurisdictions > - directory structures > - name collisions > - scopes > - inter-operability > - (more) > > Worth a workshop with a half dozen stakeholders. > > I agree with Louis' suggestion. I hav > > Cheers > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Sala, > > My 2 cents: I see 3 topics here not 5: > > > 1) IXPs & MIGRATION OF RESOURCES > > Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared Lessons] > Getting various stakeholders within developing countries particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater cohesion in the area of policy; > It will be good to see various regulatory practices around the world etc > > 2) [SMART GRIDS] & INTERNET OF THINGS > > Personally I call this category - wireless grids. fyi we are on track towards releasing version 0.1 open specs March 26 @ TEDxHarlem. Anyway, smart grids, generally speaking, aren't that smart; and the 'things' in isolation are just - things. So real issue is how does one share resources among grids and things; and not pretend all life will be in the cloud so who needs to worry our pretty little heads about who controls what - resources, including things. > > In sum, imho these 2 together are more interesting and relevant for IGF than either alone, which odds are would turn into corporate sales pitches for particular big brands...in the usual suspect category > > 3) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST > > > > (Sounds good to me; though I wonder what our ITU friends will think of IGF engaging on spectrum allocation ; ) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 07:05:43 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:05:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2012 - CIR? In-Reply-To: <4FFD8B3C-8DFC-4CE6-9EAE-742269DD28D6@uzh.ch> References: <4F4A3ABE.3090208@cafonso.ca> <4F4A67C2.5090201@apc.org> <4F4AB36F.3010702@cafonso.ca> <4FFD8B3C-8DFC-4CE6-9EAE-742269DD28D6@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4F4B7197.1060202@cafonso.ca> OK, just read the MAG 15-16/Feb Summary Report just circulated by Chengetai (attached). My concern stands, as it shows no change in the thematic approach regarding critical Internet resources - in particular, and since IGF 2012's main sessions are supposed to be "structured around questions", ignoring ITU's ITR reformulation process, now in its sixth preparatory meeting. frt rgds --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MAG Summary Final.26.2.2012.doc Type: application/msword Size: 104448 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Feb 27 07:24:14 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:24:14 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A_D?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or__=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Reall?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?y_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> (mgurst@vcn.bc.ca) References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > Folks may be interested in my current experiences in the online world. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ Thanks a lot for documenting this experience and thereby an issue that Internet governance needs to address. I'm going to mention this as an example of a problem that needs to be solved in a paper on "Principles of Digital Sustainability" that I'm working on. So, again, thanks! And good luck with pulling everything back together! 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 amalidesilva at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 08:33:41 2012 From: amalidesilva at yahoo.com (Amali De Silva) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 05:33:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council Panel on FX and the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <008c01cce78e$0ee59140$2cb0b3c0$@apc.org> Message-ID: <1330349621.3538.YahooMailNeo@web112319.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Protecting human rights on the internet is a key item for those working around a framework dealing with the United Nations. Global peace has as its center  in the UN Charter on Human Rights.  The internet is now not only a communication medium but much much more. For citizens, residents, guests to any country it is important that the legal, protection, access and all other procedures available as for under other forms of communication and behaviours is also discussed and made relevant for the internet and other forms of technology and its off shoots and forms.   Human rights are core to a civilized society. Don’t forget the children. elderly, sick and disabled and so forth as well  ! Also western governments are moving to “Open Government “philosophies which means that various countries across the globe are at various stages of evolution at their own speeds. It is important that there is a basic ( this does not mean minimum, it means a fair standard of measurement  ) standard to mirror the principles of the UN Charter on Human Rights on the internet.   Amali De Silva – Mitchell Former President Vancouver Community Network @ UN WSIS Private & Confidential   ________________________________ From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Shahzad Ahmad Cc: Robert Guerra Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2012 10:12:30 AM Subject: Re: [governance] UN Human Rights Council Panel on FX and the Internet Dear All, We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the years. We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put together a first draft for others to comment. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: Dear Robert, > >What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. > >Best wishes & regards >Shahzad > >Sent from my iPhone > > >On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Brett, >> >> In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. >> >> As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >> is still being discussed. >> >> Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >> >>> Thanks Joy, >>> >>> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). >>> >>> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the broader constellation of human rights. >>> >>> For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations can be found here: >>> >>> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>> >>> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual Panel. >>> >>> Brett >>> >>> -- >>> Brett Solomon >>> Executive Director | Access >>> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>> >>> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >>> >>> >>> >>> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >>> >>> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Joy Liddicoat >>> >>> Project Coordinator >>> >>> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>> >>> www.apc.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 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Mon Feb 27 08:45:22 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:45:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] UN Human Rights Council Panel on FX and the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <008c01cce78e$0ee59140$2cb0b3c0$@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, I am new to this thread of HR on Internet, But I was there in Geneva IGF consultation and MAG meetings. Very unfortunatelly, those who argued against the inclusion of Human Right in the main theme or create an independent main session were not the human right unfriendly countries' government, but rather, both some Western government and business/technical community people who are afraid to "antagonize" some authoritarian governments who are also participating in the IGF and in the name of "inclusion", they asked us to refrain from pushing to far. "North Wind and the Sun" in Aesop? I think we as Civil Society people should not be shy way from bringing the HR issues around Internet, as it is a sort of new undefined charter for all. I am not in favor of making hostile arguments per se, but that should not mean to agree to not to talk about it at all. izumi 2012/2/20 Shahzad Ahmad : > Dear Robert, > > What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. > > Best wishes & regards > Shahzad > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> Brett, >> >> In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. >> >> As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >> is still being discussed. >> >> Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >> >>> Thanks Joy, >>> >>> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). >>> >>> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the broader constellation of human rights. >>> >>> For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations can be found here: >>> >>> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>> >>> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual Panel. >>> >>> Brett >>> >>> -- >>> Brett Solomon >>> Executive Director | Access >>> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>> >>> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >>> >>> >>> >>> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >>> >>> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Joy Liddicoat >>> >>> Project Coordinator >>> >>> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>> >>> www.apc.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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 08:56:04 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:56:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Dealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Re?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ally_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 2/27/12, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Folks may be interested in my current experiences in the online world. >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ > > Thanks a lot for documenting this experience and thereby an issue that > Internet governance needs to address. Why does "Internet governance" need to address this? It's a free (best effort) service...OF COURSE they won't have an army of people helping you with your email? > > I'm going to mention this as an example of a problem that needs to be > solved in a paper on "Principles of Digital Sustainability" that I'm > working on. > I see no problem that needs solving here... PEBKAC, 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Mon Feb 27 09:35:57 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:35:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 Support Bill's sub-topics Robert On 2012-02-27, at 7:00 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Sala > > Please include: > WCIT and the ITRs > Enhanced cooperation, and other intergovernmental initiatives (e.g. China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) > Progress and impact of new gTLDs > Territoriality and jurisdiction over CIRs > Thanks > > Bill > > On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> If there are no further contributions to this thread, we will have to wrap up the suggestions and consolidate to send to the current MAG members. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message - --------- >> From: Louis Pouzin (well) >> Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17 >> Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups >> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> I'd be interested in a sub-theme within managing critical internet resources: >> >> Multiple name spaces in internet >> - diversity of language scripts >> - regional spaces >> - brand names management >> - diversisty of jurisdictions >> - directory structures >> - name collisions >> - scopes >> - inter-operability >> - (more) >> >> Worth a workshop with a half dozen stakeholders. >> >> I agree with Louis' suggestion. I hav >> >> Cheers >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Sala, >> >> My 2 cents: I see 3 topics here not 5: >> >> >> 1) IXPs & MIGRATION OF RESOURCES >> >> Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared Lessons] >> Getting various stakeholders within developing countries particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater cohesion in the area of policy; >> It will be good to see various regulatory practices around the world etc >> >> 2) [SMART GRIDS] & INTERNET OF THINGS >> >> Personally I call this category - wireless grids. fyi we are on track towards releasing version 0.1 open specs March 26 @ TEDxHarlem. Anyway, smart grids, generally speaking, aren't that smart; and the 'things' in isolation are just - things. So real issue is how does one share resources among grids and things; and not pretend all life will be in the cloud so who needs to worry our pretty little heads about who controls what - resources, including things. >> >> In sum, imho these 2 together are more interesting and relevant for IGF than either alone, which odds are would turn into corporate sales pitches for particular big brands...in the usual suspect category >> >> 3) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST >> >> >> >> (Sounds good to me; though I wonder what our ITU friends will think of IGF engaging on spectrum allocation ; ) >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 10:22:39 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:22:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4F4B9FBF.3080703@cafonso.ca> Good, Captain Drake! :) --c.a. On 02/27/2012 09:00 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Sala > > Please include: > WCIT and the ITRs > Enhanced cooperation, and other intergovernmental initiatives (e.g. China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) > Progress and impact of new gTLDs > Territoriality and jurisdiction over CIRs > Thanks > > Bill > > On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> If there are no further contributions to this thread, we will have to wrap up the suggestions and consolidate to send to the current MAG members. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message - --------- >> From: Louis Pouzin (well) >> Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17 >> Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups >> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> I'd be interested in a sub-theme within managing critical internet resources: >> >> Multiple name spaces in internet >> - diversity of language scripts >> - regional spaces >> - brand names management >> - diversisty of jurisdictions >> - directory structures >> - name collisions >> - scopes >> - inter-operability >> - (more) >> >> Worth a workshop with a half dozen stakeholders. >> >> I agree with Louis' suggestion. I hav >> >> Cheers >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Sala, >> >> My 2 cents: I see 3 topics here not 5: >> >> >> 1) IXPs & MIGRATION OF RESOURCES >> >> Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared Lessons] >> Getting various stakeholders within developing countries particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater cohesion in the area of policy; >> It will be good to see various regulatory practices around the world etc >> >> 2) [SMART GRIDS] & INTERNET OF THINGS >> >> Personally I call this category - wireless grids. fyi we are on track towards releasing version 0.1 open specs March 26 @ TEDxHarlem. Anyway, smart grids, generally speaking, aren't that smart; and the 'things' in isolation are just - things. So real issue is how does one share resources among grids and things; and not pretend all life will be in the cloud so who needs to worry our pretty little heads about who controls what - resources, including things. >> >> In sum, imho these 2 together are more interesting and relevant for IGF than either alone, which odds are would turn into corporate sales pitches for particular big brands...in the usual suspect category >> >> 3) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST >> >> >> >> (Sounds good to me; though I wonder what our ITU friends will think of IGF engaging on spectrum allocation ; ) >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 11:27:16 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:27:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?4=3A_Dealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Withou?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?t_Really_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:56:04 +0000) References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > On 2/27/12, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > >> Folks may be interested in my current experiences in the online world. > >> > >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ > > > > Thanks a lot for documenting this experience and thereby an issue that > > Internet governance needs to address. > > Why does "Internet governance" need to address this? It's a free > (best effort) service...OF COURSE they won't have an army of people > helping you with your email? In this particular case, Mike was in fact paying Google actual money for this service, because he wanted a bigger mailbox than what they offer for free, but that's not very relevant to the main point here as I see it. > I see no problem that needs solving here... PEBKAC, no? In my eyes, it is a problem when an essential (to a particular end-user) infrastructure, that the end-user relies on for important things, can suddenly become unavailable for days without any reasonably way to solve the problem. Note that "simply start using a different email address" is *not* a reasonable way to solve the problem, when there's no reasonable way to notify everyone who has the old email address. Maybe it should be recommended for everyone to use a domain name of their own for their email? Of course, in developing countries, a lot of people have an income which is so low in terms of dollars that it would be prohibitively expensive to use a second-level .com or comparitively priced domain name for this, but nothing would stop e.g. CCTLD operators from using their existing infrastructure to offer e.g. inexpensive third-level domain registrations under a special second-level domain under their CCTLD. Google and others could still offer to provide the essential same email service. People would use it by setting up an MX DNS record pointing to e.g. googlemail.com - but with this kind of setup, they'd be able to switch to a different email service provider when they want, for example if Google suddenly decides to stop providing their service for a particular email address, like they did in Mike's case. 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 11:32:49 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:32:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Good evening, It is sometimes difficult to understand all the abbreviations that are sent in content. Could you detail for us to understand. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/27 William Drake > Hi Sala > > Please include: > > 1. WCIT and the ITRs > 2. Enhanced cooperation, and other intergovernmental initiatives > (e.g. China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) > 3. Progress and impact of new gTLDs > 4. Territoriality and jurisdiction over CIRs > > Thanks > > Bill > > On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > If there are no further contributions to this thread, we will have to wrap > up the suggestions and consolidate to send to the current MAG members. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> ---------- Forwarded message - --------- >> From: Louis Pouzin (well) >> Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17 >> Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups >> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> I'd be interested in a sub-theme within managing critical internet >> resources: >> >> *Multiple name spaces in internet* >> - diversity of language scripts >> - regional spaces >> - brand names management >> - diversisty of jurisdictions >> - directory structures >> - name collisions >> - scopes >> - inter-operability >> - (more) >> >> Worth a workshop with a half dozen stakeholders. >> >> I agree with Louis' suggestion. I hav >> >> Cheers >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >>> Sala, >>> >>> My 2 cents: I see 3 topics here not 5: >>> >>> >>>> 1) IXPs & MIGRATION OF RESOURCES >>>> >>> >>> - Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared Lessons] >>> - >>> - Getting various stakeholders within developing countries >>> particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater >>> cohesion in the area of policy; >>> - It will be good to see various regulatory practices around the >>> world etc >>> >>> >>> 2) [SMART GRIDS] & INTERNET OF THINGS >>> - >>> >>> Personally I call this category - wireless grids. fyi we are on >>> track towards releasing version 0.1 open specs March 26 @ TEDxHarlem. >>> Anyway, smart grids, generally speaking, aren't that smart; and the >>> 'things' in isolation are just - things. So real issue is how does one >>> share resources among grids and things; and not pretend all life will be in >>> the cloud so who needs to worry our pretty little heads about who controls >>> what - resources, including things. >>> >>> In sum, imho these 2 together are more interesting and relevant for IGF >>> than either alone, which odds are would turn into corporate sales pitches >>> for particular big brands...in the usual suspect category >>> >>> >>> 3) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF >>>> PUBLIC INTEREST >>>> >>>> >>>> (Sounds good to me; though I wonder what our ITU friends will think >>>> of IGF engaging on spectrum allocation ; ) >>>> >>> >>> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Feb 27 11:49:44 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:49:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3C61E369-8369-431B-B84F-82421F3D0286@privaterra.org> On 2012-02-27, at 11:32 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > Good evening, > > It is sometimes difficult to understand all the abbreviations that are sent in content. Could you detail for us to understand. > > Baudouin, The abbreviations that Bill included in his email are - key terms - related to internet governance. As you and/or others aren't familiar with them, let me try to share some - quick - background notes and/or references. Suffice it to say, the terms mentioned are key ones that all in this caucus should be familiar with at some level... regards Robert > > > 2012/2/27 William Drake > > • WCIT and the ITRs WCIT - 2012 ITU World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/community/itr.shtml http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/ A World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) will be convened in 2012, the first ever WCIT in the history of the International Telecommunication Union. By its Resolution 146, the Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya, 2006) resolved that a review of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) should be carried out and that a world conference on international telecommunications (WCIT) be convened in 2012, on the basis of the recommendations arising from this process of review. The ITRs establish general principles relating to the provision and operation of international telecommunication. They are designed to facilitate global interconnection and interoperability of telecommunication infrastructure, underpin the harmonious development and efficient operation of technical facilities, and promote the efficiency and availability of international telecommunication services. The International Telecommunication Regulations is a treaty instrument of the ITU. These Regulations succeeded the Telegraph Regulations (1973) and Telephone Regulations (1973) in a new treaty adopted at WATTC-88 (Melbourne). Date and Venue At its 2011 session (11-21 October), the ITU Council adopted Resolution 1335 (see Council Document C11/98) by which it resolved that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) shall be convened, with the concurrence of a majority of the Member States, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for a duration of ten working days from 3 to 14 December 2012. > • Enhanced cooperation, and other intergovernmental initiatives (e.g. China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) Russia, China, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan introduce proposed Internet 'code of conduct' This unlikely quartet of countries has introduced a resolution to the U.N. General assembly, calling for the establishment of "international norms and rules guiding the behaviour of States in the information space." http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/21/russia_china_uzbekistan_and_tajikistan_introduce_proposed_internet_code_of_conduct http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/russia-china-tajikistan-propose-un-code-of-conduct-for-the-net.ars > • Progress and impact of new gTLDs Generic Top Level Domains http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/customer-service/faqs > • Territoriality and jurisdiction over CIRs Critical Internet Resources http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/documents/internetcriticalresources_en.pdf http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/5.CriticalInternetResources.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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Feb 27 12:05:01 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:05:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Message-ID: <1330362301.38747.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Please also include the Wireless Network Infrastructure as a Critical Internet Source. In some countries, including Pakistan, has implanted ban to use of ISM Frequency. In our country, Thousands Installations of Wireless Pairs (operating on 24 / 5.8 GHz) has become illegal. Millions Dollar Investment has become waste. These equipment provides a good reliable service (for data and internet) connectivity upto 25-30 Km. While there is no alternate (for long distance) is available in most of the areas, even Microwave Radio link solution some times not feasible because, two different Radio Links can not be installed on same tower/pole (technically) on same building. Some countries already had ban on use of ISM Band e.g. Saudi Arabia, even it is acceptable but in some countries, since 1996, it was open for use and was using widely/openly but sudden change in regulations developed problem for all kind of users. Best Regards Imran ------------------------------On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 8:22 PM PKT Carlos A. Afonso wrote:>Good, Captain Drake! :)>>--c.a.>>On 02/27/2012 09:00 AM, William Drake wrote:>> Hi Sala>> >> Please include:>> WCIT and the ITRs>> Enhanced cooperation, and other intergovernmental initiatives (e.g. China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan)>> Progress and impact of new gTLDs>> Territoriality and jurisdiction over CIRs>> Thanks>> >> Bill>> >> On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>> >> Dear All,>>>> If there are no further contributions to this thread, we will have to wrap up the suggestions and consolidate to send to the current MAG members.>>>> Kind Regards,>> Sala>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>> ---------- Forwarded message - --------->> From: Louis Pouzin (well) >> Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17>> Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups>> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>> Hi Sala,>>>> I'd be interested in a sub-theme within managing critical internet resources:>>>> Multiple name spaces in internet>> - diversity of language scripts>> - regional spaces>> - brand names management>> - diversisty of jurisdictions>> - directory structures>> - name collisions>> - scopes>> - inter-operability>> - (more)>>>> Worth a workshop with a half dozen stakeholders.>>>> I agree with Louis' suggestion. I hav>>>> Cheers>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:>> Sala,>>>> My 2 cents: I see 3 topics here not 5:>>>>>> 1) IXPs & MIGRATION OF RESOURCES>>>> Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared Lessons]>> Getting various stakeholders within developing countries particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater cohesion in the area of policy;>> It will be good to see various regulatory practices around the world etc>> >> 2) [SMART GRIDS] & INTERNET OF THINGS>>>> Personally I call this category - wireless grids. fyi we are on track towards releasing version 0.1 open specs March 26 @ TEDxHarlem. Anyway, smart grids, generally speaking, aren't that smart; and the 'things' in isolation are just - things. So real issue is how does one share resources among grids and things; and not pretend all life will be in the cloud so who needs to worry our pretty little heads about who controls what - resources, including things.>>>> In sum, imho these 2 together are more interesting and relevant for IGF than either alone, which odds are would turn into corporate sales pitches for particular big brands...in the usual suspect category>>>> 3) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST>>>>>>>> (Sounds good to me; though I wonder what our ITU friends will think of IGF engaging on spectrum allocation ; )>>>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 12:29:18 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 05:29:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <1330362301.38747.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1330362301.38747.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Bill, Schombe, Robert and Imran, Thank you for your comments and contributions. Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Please also include the Wireless Network Infrastructure as a Critical > Internet Source. > In some countries, including Pakistan, has implanted ban to use of ISM > Frequency. > > In our country, Thousands Installations of Wireless Pairs (operating on 24 > / 5.8 GHz) has become illegal. Millions Dollar Investment has become > waste. These equipment provides a good reliable service (for data and > internet) connectivity upto 25-30 Km. While there is no alternate (for long > distance) is available in most of the areas, even Microwave Radio link > solution some times not feasible because, two different Radio Links can not > be installed on same tower/pole (technically) on same building. > > Some countries already had ban on use of ISM Band e.g. Saudi Arabia, even > it is acceptable but in some countries, since 1996, it was open for use and > was using widely/openly but sudden change in regulations developed problem > for all kind of users. > Best Regards > Imran > > ------------------------------On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 8:22 PM PKT Carlos A. > Afonso wrote:>Good, Captain Drake! :)>>--c.a.>>On 02/27/2012 09:00 AM, > William Drake wrote:>> Hi Sala>> >> Please include:>> WCIT and the ITRs>> > Enhanced cooperation, and other intergovernmental initiatives (e.g. China, > Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan)>> Progress and impact of new gTLDs>> > Territoriality and jurisdiction over CIRs>> Thanks>> >> Bill>> >> On Feb > 27, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>> >> Dear > All,>>>> If there are no further contributions to this thread, we will have > to wrap up the suggestions and consolidate to send to the current MAG > members.>>>> Kind Regards,>> Sala>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM, > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote:>> ---------- Forwarded message - --------->> From: Louis Pouzin > (well) >> Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17>> Subject: > [governance] On the MAG thematic > working groups>> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>>>>> Hi Sala,>>>> I'd be interested > in a sub-theme within managing critical internet resources:>>>> Multiple > name spaces in internet>> - diversity of language scripts>> - regional > spaces>> - brand names management>> - diversisty of jurisdictions>> - > directory structures>> - name collisions>> - scopes>> - > inter-operability>> - (more)>>>> Worth a workshop with a half dozen > stakeholders.>>>> I agree with Louis' suggestion. I hav>>>> Cheers>>>>>> On > Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:>> > Sala,>>>> My 2 cents: I see 3 topics here not 5:>>>>>> 1) IXPs & > MIGRATION OF RESOURCES>>>> Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared > Lessons]>> Getting various stakeholders within developing countries > particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater > cohesion in the area of policy;>> It will be good to see various > regulatory practices around the world etc>> >> 2) [SMART GRIDS] & > INTERNET OF THINGS>>>> Personally I call this category - wireless grids. > fyi we are on track towards releasing version 0.1 open specs March 26 @ > TEDxHarlem. Anyway, smart grids, generally speaking, aren't that smart; > and the 'things' in isolation are just - things. So real issue is how does > one share resources among grids and things; and not pretend all life will > be in the cloud so who needs to worry our pretty little heads about who > controls what - resources, including things.>>>> In sum, imho these 2 > together are more interesting and relevant for IGF than either alone, which > odds are would turn into corporate sales pitches for particular big > brands...in the usual suspect category>>>> 3) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR > MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST>>>>>>>> (Sounds good > to me; though I wonder what our ITU friends will think of IGF engaging on > spectrum allocation > ; )>>>> >> > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 12:58:27 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:58:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sala, I believe that last IGF a general perception emerged that it is important to coordinate and harmonize the current plurality of efforts to develop principles for Internet regulation. Civil society advocated for it and the result of an initial effort to compare initiatives has been set forth by Wolfgang. I think that a multistakeholder concerted effort on this direction could take place this year, culminating on the taking stocks session. I think this makes much more sense than asking who regulates the Internet, a too broad question that would lead to very limited outcomes, in my opinion. The other topics are relevant, but not appropriate for a session on taking stocks and the way forward. Best, Marília On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > I agree Deirdre > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >> I still think it would be interesting to consider as well as this topic >> "How are the rules for the Internet set". Awareness of the process often >> leads to identification of the responsible actors. >> Deirdre >> >> On 27 February 2012 06:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will assume >>> that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >>>> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with >>>> the following:- >>>> >>>> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>>> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >>>> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >>>> (following the way it was organised in 2011) >>>> >>>> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Taking >>>> Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would like to >>>> ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the >>>> list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can >>>> volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so >>>> it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our >>>> current MAG representatives to take this forward. >>>> >>>> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >>>> follows:- >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>> >>>> 2) IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA >>>> >>>> 3) ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET >>>> >>>> 4) SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 13:07:33 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:07:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <3C61E369-8369-431B-B84F-82421F3D0286@privaterra.org> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <3C61E369-8369-431B-B84F-82421F3D0286@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Thank you Robert, My apologies. Yes, I am immersed in debates and cross it happens that we lose sight of the meaning of certain abbreviations that are familiar. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/2/27 Robert Guerra > > On 2012-02-27, at 11:32 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > > Good evening, > > It is sometimes difficult to understand all the abbreviations that > are sent in content. Could you detail for us to understand. > > > Baudouin, > > The abbreviations that Bill included in his email are - key terms - > related to internet governance. As you and/or others aren't familiar with > them, let me try to share some - quick - background notes and/or > references. > > Suffice it to say, the terms mentioned are key ones that all in this > caucus should be familiar with at some level... > > > regards > > Robert > > > > > > 2012/2/27 William Drake > > • WCIT and the ITRs > > > *WCIT* > - 2012 ITU World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) > > http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/community/itr.shtml > http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/ > > A *World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT)* will be > convened in 2012, the first ever WCIT in the history of the International > Telecommunication Union. > > > By its Resolution 146, the Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya, 2006) > resolved that a review of the *International Telecommunication Regulations > * (ITRs) should be carried out and that a world conference on > international telecommunications (WCIT) be convened in 2012, on the basis > of the recommendations arising from this process of review. > > > The ITRs establish general principles relating to the provision and > operation of international telecommunication. They are designed to > facilitate global interconnection and interoperability of telecommunication > infrastructure, underpin the harmonious development and efficient operation > of technical facilities, and promote the efficiency and availability of > international telecommunication services. The International > Telecommunication Regulations is a treaty instrument of the ITU. These > Regulations succeeded the Telegraph Regulations (1973) and Telephone > Regulations (1973) in a new treaty adopted at WATTC-88 (Melbourne). > > > Date and Venue > At its 2011 session (11-21 October), the ITU Council adopted Resolution > 1335 (see Council Document C11/98) by which it resolved that the World > Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) shall be convened, > with the concurrence of a majority of the Member States, in Dubai, United > Arab Emirates, for a duration of ten working days from 3 to 14 > December 2012. > > • Enhanced cooperation, and other intergovernmental initiatives (e.g. > China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) > > > *Russia, China, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan introduce proposed Internet > 'code of conduct'* > > This unlikely quartet of countries has introduced a resolution to the U.N. > General assembly, calling for the establishment of "international norms and > rules guiding the behaviour of States in the information space." > > > http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/09/21/russia_china_uzbekistan_and_tajikistan_introduce_proposed_internet_code_of_conduct > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/russia-china-tajikistan-propose-un-code-of-conduct-for-the-net.ars > > > • Progress and impact of new gTLDs > > > Generic Top Level Domains > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/customer-service/faqs > > > • Territoriality and jurisdiction over CIRs > > > Critical Internet Resources > > http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/documents/internetcriticalresources_en.pdf > http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/5.CriticalInternetResources.pdf > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 13:18:31 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:18:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Discussion of Internet principles was suggested for the IG4D session: • A. INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES FRAMEWORK • B. BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE • FACILITATING PARTICIPATION FOR ALL IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY AND KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY • PROMOTING HUMAN, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • CONTRIBUTING TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION • INFRASTRUCTURE, INVESTMENT ISSUES • SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES • [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK] Pretty much either A, principles, or B some or all of the rest, I'd go for A in IG4D. Taking stock, a synthesis of the event makes sense. it was suggested such a synthesis might focus on how the development theme has been addressed throughout the meeting. Adam On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Sala, > > I believe that last IGF a general perception emerged that it is important to > coordinate and harmonize the current plurality of efforts to develop > principles for Internet regulation. Civil society advocated for it and the > result of an initial effort to compare initiatives has been set forth by > Wolfgang. I think that a multistakeholder concerted effort on this direction > could take place this year, culminating on the taking stocks session. > > I think this makes much more sense than asking who regulates the Internet, a > too broad question that would lead to very limited outcomes, in my opinion. > The other topics are relevant, but not appropriate for a session on taking > stocks and the way forward. > > Best, > Marília > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> I agree Deirdre >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Deirdre Williams >> wrote: >>> >>> 1)    WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>> I still think it would be interesting to consider as well as this topic >>> "How are the rules for the Internet set". Awareness of the process often >>> leads to identification of the responsible actors. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 27 February 2012 06:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will assume >>>> that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >>>>> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with the >>>>> following:- >>>>> >>>>> consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>>>> come up with a coherent description of the theme >>>>> come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme (following >>>>> the way it was organised in 2011) >>>>> >>>>> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Taking >>>>> Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would like to >>>>> ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the >>>>> list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can >>>>> volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it >>>>> can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current >>>>> MAG representatives to take this forward. >>>>> >>>>> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >>>>> follows:- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1)    WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>>> >>>>> 2)    IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA >>>>> >>>>> 3)    ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET >>>>> >>>>> 4)    SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> >>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 13:21:00 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:21:00 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marilia, I have no firm views in this regard. However, I think Norbert Bollow and the excellent work done on mapping Internet Governance and to explore the scope of the boundaries of key stakeholders so as to foster and create a better understanding and holistic view of how we can specifically advocate our issues better. There are some bodies who have overlapping roles and so it may be useful. I would suggest the creation of sub-themes in this regard. What are your thoughts Marilia and Deirdre? On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi Sala, > > > I believe that last IGF a general perception emerged that it is important > to coordinate and harmonize the current plurality of efforts to develop > principles for Internet regulation. Civil society advocated for it and the > result of an initial effort to compare initiatives has been set forth by > Wolfgang. I think that a multistakeholder concerted effort on this > direction could take place this year, culminating on the taking stocks > session. > > I think this makes much more sense than asking who regulates the Internet, > a too broad question that would lead to very limited outcomes, in my > opinion. The other topics are relevant, but not appropriate for a session > on taking stocks and the way forward. > > Best, > Marília > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree Deirdre >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Deirdre Williams < >> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>> I still think it would be interesting to consider as well as this topic >>> "How are the rules for the Internet set". Awareness of the process often >>> leads to identification of the responsible actors. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 27 February 2012 06:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will >>>> assume that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >>>>> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with >>>>> the following:- >>>>> >>>>> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>>>> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >>>>> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >>>>> (following the way it was organised in 2011) >>>>> >>>>> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on >>>>> Taking Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would >>>>> like to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed >>>>> by the list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and >>>>> people can volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th >>>>> February, 2012 so it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period >>>>> before we ask our current MAG representatives to take this forward. >>>>> >>>>> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >>>>> follows:- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>>> >>>>> 2) IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA >>>>> >>>>> 3) ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET >>>>> >>>>> 4) SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> >>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 13:38:44 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:38:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam, Thanks for the clarification. Given the topics listed on IG4D, I would strongly go for A (principles). Although I always believed that it is more useful to put emphasis on "the way forward" rather than on the "taking stocks" part of the session, I have no strong feelings against doing a synthesis of the meeting. If the organizers of the session decide otherwise, though, I think that Sala's suggestion of revising (and maybe doing some warp up) of the effort of mapping the IG regime is interesting, especially given the fact that the SG report that created the CSTD WG on IGF improvements asked the WG to strengthen the links between the IGF and the ongoing policy dialogue on IG. I just think that "Internet regulation" is not a good title, as it overshadows the fact that much of the "regulation" of the Internet is done by private actors ex: we are currently discussing the impact of the changes in Google's privacy policy, for instance. Therefore, I would suggest something like "Internet governance regulatory ecosystem" or something along these lines. Marília On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > I have no firm views in this regard. However, I think Norbert Bollow and > the excellent work done on mapping Internet Governance and to explore the > scope of the boundaries of key stakeholders so as to foster and create a > better understanding and holistic view of how we can specifically advocate > our issues better. > > There are some bodies who have overlapping roles and so it may be useful. > I would suggest the creation of sub-themes in this regard. > > What are your thoughts Marilia and Deirdre? > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi Sala, > >> >> I believe that last IGF a general perception emerged that it is important >> to coordinate and harmonize the current plurality of efforts to develop >> principles for Internet regulation. Civil society advocated for it and the >> result of an initial effort to compare initiatives has been set forth by >> Wolfgang. I think that a multistakeholder concerted effort on this >> direction could take place this year, culminating on the taking stocks >> session. >> >> I think this makes much more sense than asking who regulates the >> Internet, a too broad question that would lead to very limited outcomes, in >> my opinion. The other topics are relevant, but not appropriate for a >> session on taking stocks and the way forward. >> >> Best, >> Marília >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree Deirdre >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Deirdre Williams < >>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>> I still think it would be interesting to consider as well as this topic >>>> "How are the rules for the Internet set". Awareness of the process >>>> often leads to identification of the responsible actors. >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> On 27 February 2012 06:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will >>>>> assume that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >>>>>> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with >>>>>> the following:- >>>>>> >>>>>> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>>>>> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >>>>>> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >>>>>> (following the way it was organised in 2011) >>>>>> >>>>>> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on >>>>>> Taking Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would >>>>>> like to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed >>>>>> by the list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and >>>>>> people can volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th >>>>>> February, 2012 so it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period >>>>>> before we ask our current MAG representatives to take this forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >>>>>> follows:- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET >>>>>> >>>>>> 4) SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> >>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Mon Feb 27 13:42:19 2012 From: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:42:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=3A_Dealing_with_the__Borg_=28Or__=93Being_Evil=94_Without?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_Really_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> I'm still not recovered... So sending this from a back-up account--notably a community network that I at one time used as my primary account but which I gave up for the siren song of gmail :(. The Vancouver Community Network has been providing volunteer based, free email service for about 15 years or so and has done it reliably and with remarkably little downtime or system failure. Also, they are very responsive and just down the road (I've been on their Board off and on for years... (There is I think a significant message there as well... But to reply to McTim (and Norbert)... At one level my issues with gmail are consumer protection issues -- which however, since they seem to be transnational it is hard to see who/how I can invoke these (but I could be wrong... But at a deeper level I think it is not simply protecting the consumer but regulating a utility... My guess is that if we asked virtually any population in the world the appropriate set of questions the result would be that they experience email not as a "consumer good" but rather as a necessary element of their day to day infrastructure as a citizen, consumer, business operator, parent etc.etc. And that any significant disruption would be experienced in more or less the same manner as a disruption in any other significant utility/infrastructure of modern life... It is I think only a matter of time before this is widely recognized politically and some sort of regulatory environment established--it is probably only delayed because of the speed of evolution of the tech, the technological illiteracy of most politicians (among the last groups in the world to move into the email enabled world--according to studies in various countries), and the difficulty of transnational regulation and the absence of a framework through which such regulation could be introduced and managed. Your reference to PEBKAC is ridiculous... I'm reasonably well-educated/informed/intelligent... I made best efforts as indicated in my blog post and I found myself in gmail hell (where I still reside BTW... I've been searching around in gmail "help" and found many other people--some who appear rather more technically literate than myself similarly lost somewhere in the antechamber of Kafka's Castle/trying to communicate with the Borg (HAL?).. and from various comments and my blog and particularly private emails many many other people have similar problems... when a problem because sufficiently common it moves from being the victims problem to being the originators' problem or at least it should... And as various other people have noted gmail is not a "free" (as in benevolent) service... getting people to gmail--which Google has and continues to aggressively attempt to do is part of their business model where they take the information which folks using their mail service gives them access to and they then sell that (at very considerable profit) to various folks with an interest. Best, Mike > McTim wrote: >> On 2/27/12, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > Michael Gurstein wrote: >> > >> >> Folks may be interested in my current experiences in the online >> world. >> >> >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ >> > >> > Thanks a lot for documenting this experience and thereby an issue that >> > Internet governance needs to address. >> >> Why does "Internet governance" need to address this? It's a free >> (best effort) service...OF COURSE they won't have an army of people >> helping you with your email? > > In this particular case, Mike was in fact paying Google actual money > for this service, because he wanted a bigger mailbox than what they > offer for free, but that's not very relevant to the main point here > as I see it. > >> I see no problem that needs solving here... PEBKAC, no? > > In my eyes, it is a problem when an essential (to a particular end-user) > infrastructure, that the end-user relies on for important things, can > suddenly become unavailable for days without any reasonably way to > solve the problem. > > Note that "simply start using a different email address" is *not* a > reasonable way to solve the problem, when there's no reasonable way > to notify everyone who has the old email address. > > Maybe it should be recommended for everyone to use a domain name of > their own for their email? Of course, in developing countries, a lot > of people have an income which is so low in terms of dollars that it > would be prohibitively expensive to use a second-level .com or > comparitively priced domain name for this, but nothing would stop > e.g. CCTLD operators from using their existing infrastructure to offer > e.g. inexpensive third-level domain registrations under a special > second-level domain under their CCTLD. > > Google and others could still offer to provide the essential same > email service. People would use it by setting up an MX DNS record > pointing to e.g. googlemail.com - but with this kind of setup, they'd > be able to switch to a different email service provider when they want, > for example if Google suddenly decides to stop providing their service > for a particular email address, like they did in Mike's case. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > !DSPAM:2676,4f4baf3a25622006457889! > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 13:59:17 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 06:59:17 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Internet Governance Regulatory Ecosystem" sounds better and captures what I had in mind. This is a critical and key issue and whilst aspects of this will be explored in IG4D as Adam pointed out, I still think this is something that also falls in this space or thread. This is critical especially in a season where countries are dealing with global economic shocks and its subsequent impact and there is room to work towards greater efficiency in engagement on a whole number of levels (globally, regionally and internationally). This is a vital platform that will enable greater cohesion and policy coherence on critical issues. I am also mindful that this can help all stakeholders to poise themselves to contributing efficiently and strategically on any Internet Governance Issue. There will also be room to see how we can come alongside other organisations in terms of advocating on certain issues to lobby or advocate. [Thinking out loud] On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for the clarification. Given the topics listed on IG4D, I would > strongly go for A (principles) . > > Although I always believed that it is more useful to put emphasis on "the > way forward" rather than on the "taking stocks" part of the session, I have > no strong feelings against doing a synthesis of the meeting. If the > organizers of the session decide otherwise, though, I think that Sala's > suggestion of revising (and maybe doing some warp up) of the effort of > mapping the IG regime is interesting, especially given the fact that the SG > report that created the CSTD WG on IGF improvements asked the WG to > strengthen the links between the IGF and the ongoing policy dialogue on IG. > > I just think that "Internet regulation" is not a good title, as it > overshadows the fact that much of the "regulation" of the Internet is done > by private actors ex: we are currently discussing the impact of the changes > in Google's privacy policy, for instance. Therefore, I would suggest > something like "Internet governance regulatory ecosystem" or something > along these lines. > > Marília > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Marilia, >> >> I have no firm views in this regard. However, I think Norbert Bollow and >> the excellent work done on mapping Internet Governance and to explore the >> scope of the boundaries of key stakeholders so as to foster and create a >> better understanding and holistic view of how we can specifically advocate >> our issues better. >> >> There are some bodies who have overlapping roles and so it may be useful. >> I would suggest the creation of sub-themes in this regard. >> >> What are your thoughts Marilia and Deirdre? >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: Hi Sala, >> >>> >>> I believe that last IGF a general perception emerged that it is >>> important to coordinate and harmonize the current plurality of efforts to >>> develop principles for Internet regulation. Civil society advocated for it >>> and the result of an initial effort to compare initiatives has been set >>> forth by Wolfgang. I think that a multistakeholder concerted effort on this >>> direction could take place this year, culminating on the taking stocks >>> session. >>> >>> I think this makes much more sense than asking who regulates the >>> Internet, a too broad question that would lead to very limited outcomes, in >>> my opinion. The other topics are relevant, but not appropriate for a >>> session on taking stocks and the way forward. >>> >>> Best, >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree Deirdre >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Deirdre Williams < >>>> williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>>> I still think it would be interesting to consider as well as this topic >>>>> "How are the rules for the Internet set". Awareness of the process >>>>> often leads to identification of the responsible actors. >>>>> Deirdre >>>>> >>>>> On 27 February 2012 06:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will >>>>>> assume that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>> Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >>>>>>> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with >>>>>>> the following:- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>>>>>> - come up with a coherent description of the theme >>>>>>> - come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >>>>>>> (following the way it was organised in 2011) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on >>>>>>> Taking Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would >>>>>>> like to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed >>>>>>> by the list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and >>>>>>> people can volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th >>>>>>> February, 2012 so it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period >>>>>>> before we ask our current MAG representatives to take this forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >>>>>>> follows:- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3) ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4) SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 14:49:01 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:49:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?4=3A_Dealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Withou?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?t_Really_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: I remember nearly twenty years ago Michael Hart, the founder of Project Gutenberg (a service which comes much closer than Gmail to what can be described as 'free'), wishing wistfully for a technology which would facilitate tiny payments - say 5c each. It seems that Google and Facebook have managed to do just that by aggregating tiny pieces of information and converting them into money later. We need economic capacity building too :-) Many online services, paid and 'free', are offered 'warts and all', and that is how we are forced to accept them. There's a rights issue here too, and it's time that we begin to demand them. Deirdre On 27 February 2012 14:42, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm still not recovered... So sending this from a back-up account--notably > a community network that I at one time used as my primary account but > which I gave up for the siren song of gmail :(. The Vancouver Community > Network has been providing volunteer based, free email service for about > 15 years or so and has done it reliably and with remarkably little > downtime or system failure. Also, they are very responsive and just down > the road (I've been on their Board off and on for years... (There is I > think a significant message there as well... > > But to reply to McTim (and Norbert)... > > At one level my issues with gmail are consumer protection issues -- which > however, since they seem to be transnational it is hard to see who/how I > can invoke these (but I could be wrong... > > But at a deeper level I think it is not simply protecting the consumer but > regulating a utility... My guess is that if we asked virtually any > population in the world the appropriate set of questions the result would > be that they experience email not as a "consumer good" but rather as a > necessary element of their day to day infrastructure as a citizen, > consumer, business operator, parent etc.etc. And that any significant > disruption would be experienced in more or less the same manner as a > disruption in any other significant utility/infrastructure of modern > life... > > It is I think only a matter of time before this is widely recognized > politically and some sort of regulatory environment established--it is > probably only delayed because of the speed of evolution of the tech, the > technological illiteracy of most politicians (among the last groups in the > world to move into the email enabled world--according to studies in > various countries), and the difficulty of transnational regulation and the > absence of a framework through which such regulation could be introduced > and managed. > > Your reference to PEBKAC is ridiculous... I'm reasonably > well-educated/informed/intelligent... I made best efforts as indicated in > my blog post and I found myself in gmail hell (where I still reside BTW... > I've been searching around in gmail "help" and found many other > people--some who appear rather more technically literate than myself > similarly lost somewhere in the antechamber of Kafka's Castle/trying to > communicate with the Borg (HAL?).. and from various comments and my blog > and particularly private emails many many other people have similar > problems... when a problem because sufficiently common it moves from being > the victims problem to being the originators' problem or at least it > should... > > And as various other people have noted gmail is not a "free" (as in > benevolent) service... getting people to gmail--which Google has and > continues to aggressively attempt to do is part of their business model > where they take the information which folks using their mail service gives > them access to and they then sell that (at very considerable profit) to > various folks with an interest. > > Best, > > Mike > > > > McTim wrote: > >> On 2/27/12, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> > > >> >> Folks may be interested in my current experiences in the online > >> world. > >> >> > >> >> > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ > >> > > >> > Thanks a lot for documenting this experience and thereby an issue that > >> > Internet governance needs to address. > >> > >> Why does "Internet governance" need to address this? It's a free > >> (best effort) service...OF COURSE they won't have an army of people > >> helping you with your email? > > > > In this particular case, Mike was in fact paying Google actual money > > for this service, because he wanted a bigger mailbox than what they > > offer for free, but that's not very relevant to the main point here > > as I see it. > > > >> I see no problem that needs solving here... PEBKAC, no? > > > > In my eyes, it is a problem when an essential (to a particular end-user) > > infrastructure, that the end-user relies on for important things, can > > suddenly become unavailable for days without any reasonably way to > > solve the problem. > > > > Note that "simply start using a different email address" is *not* a > > reasonable way to solve the problem, when there's no reasonable way > > to notify everyone who has the old email address. > > > > Maybe it should be recommended for everyone to use a domain name of > > their own for their email? Of course, in developing countries, a lot > > of people have an income which is so low in terms of dollars that it > > would be prohibitively expensive to use a second-level .com or > > comparitively priced domain name for this, but nothing would stop > > e.g. CCTLD operators from using their existing infrastructure to offer > > e.g. inexpensive third-level domain registrations under a special > > second-level domain under their CCTLD. > > > > Google and others could still offer to provide the essential same > > email service. People would use it by setting up an MX DNS record > > pointing to e.g. googlemail.com - but with this kind of setup, they'd > > be able to switch to a different email service provider when they want, > > for example if Google suddenly decides to stop providing their service > > for a particular email address, like they did in Mike's case. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,4f4baf3a25622006457889! > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 anriette at apc.org Mon Feb 27 16:54:34 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 23:54:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <1330362301.38747.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1330362301.38747.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4F4BFB9A.3020408@apc.org> Imran.. agree this is important. In the MAG meeting there was mention of wireless spectrum, and of infrastructure (Brazil proposed infrastructure as a main topic under IG4D). It could fit under 'access' too.. but I like having in CIR actually.. problem is that CIR is becoming loaded with lots of important topics. Having the freedom to come up with new main session 'themes' would make it all so much easier. Anriette On 27/02/12 19:05, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Please also include the Wireless Network Infrastructure as a Critical Internet Source. > In some countries, including Pakistan, has implanted ban to use of ISM Frequency. > > In our country, Thousands Installations of Wireless Pairs (operating on 24 / 5.8 GHz) has become illegal. Millions Dollar Investment has become waste. These equipment provides a good reliable service (for data and internet) connectivity upto 25-30 Km. While there is no alternate (for long distance) is available in most of the areas, even Microwave Radio link solution some times not feasible because, two different Radio Links can not be installed on same tower/pole (technically) on same building. > > Some countries already had ban on use of ISM Band e.g. Saudi Arabia, even it is acceptable but in some countries, since 1996, it was open for use and was using widely/openly but sudden change in regulations developed problem for all kind of users. > Best Regards > Imran > > ------------------------------On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 8:22 PM PKT Carlos A. Afonso wrote:>Good, Captain Drake! :)>>--c.a.>>On 02/27/2012 09:00 AM, William Drake wrote:>> Hi Sala>> >> Please include:>> WCIT and the ITRs>> Enhanced cooperation, and other intergovernmental initiatives (e.g. China, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan)>> Progress and impact of new gTLDs>> Territoriality and jurisdiction over CIRs>> Thanks>> >> Bill>> >> On Feb 27, 2012, at 11:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>> >> Dear All,>>>> If there are no further contributions to this thread, we will have to wrap up the suggestions and consolidate to send to the current MAG members.>>>> Kind Regards,>> Sala>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:>> ---------- Forwarded message - --------->> From: Louis Pouzin (well) >> Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17>> Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic > working groups>> To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >>>> Hi Sala,>>>> I'd be interested in a sub-theme within managing critical internet resources:>>>> Multiple name spaces in internet>> - diversity of language scripts>> - regional spaces>> - brand names management>> - diversisty of jurisdictions>> - directory structures>> - name collisions>> - scopes>> - inter-operability>> - (more)>>>> Worth a workshop with a half dozen stakeholders.>>>> I agree with Louis' suggestion. I hav>>>> Cheers>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote:>> Sala,>>>> My 2 cents: I see 3 topics here not 5:>>>>>> 1) IXPs & MIGRATION OF RESOURCES>>>> Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 [Shared Lessons]>> Getting various stakeholders within developing countries particularly policy makers to see the linkages - encouraging greater cohesion in the area of policy;>> It will be good to see various > regulatory practices around the world etc>> >> 2) [SMART GRIDS] & INTERNET OF THINGS>>>> Personally I call this category - wireless grids. fyi we are on track towards releasing version 0.1 open specs March 26 @ TEDxHarlem. Anyway, smart grids, generally speaking, aren't that smart; and the 'things' in isolation are just - things. So real issue is how does one share resources among grids and things; and not pretend all life will be in the cloud so who needs to worry our pretty little heads about who controls what - resources, including things.>>>> In sum, imho these 2 together are more interesting and relevant for IGF than either alone, which odds are would turn into corporate sales pitches for particular big brands...in the usual suspect category>>>> 3) SPECTRUM ALLOCATION FOR MOBILE SERVICES AND THE DIMENSION OF PUBLIC INTEREST>>>>>>>> (Sounds good to me; though I wonder what our ITU friends will think of IGF engaging on spectrum allocation > ; )>>>> >> > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 20:29:20 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:29:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? Message-ID: Is this for real? http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320137#ixzz1ndQsHZs9 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 27 22:47:59 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:47:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm not suggesting the whole session should be used for a review/synthesis, but we keep on having these annual cross-cutting themes, and there's little or no consideration of whether they've been effectively addressed or not. Specific example would be to have a development expert look at the IG4D theme and how that's been integrated. Adam On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hi Adam, > > Thanks for the clarification. Given the topics listed on IG4D, I would > strongly go for A (principles). > > Although I always believed that it is more useful to put emphasis on "the > way forward" rather than on the "taking stocks" part of the session, I have > no strong feelings against doing a synthesis of the meeting. If the > organizers of the session decide otherwise, though, I think that Sala's > suggestion of revising (and maybe doing some warp up) of the effort of > mapping the IG regime is interesting, especially given the fact that the SG > report that created the CSTD WG on IGF improvements asked the WG to > strengthen the links between the IGF and the ongoing policy dialogue on IG. > > I just think that "Internet regulation" is not a good title, as it > overshadows the fact that much of the "regulation" of the Internet is done > by private actors ex: we are currently discussing the impact of the changes > in Google's privacy policy, for instance. Therefore, I would suggest > something like "Internet governance regulatory ecosystem" or something along > these lines. > > Marília > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Hi Marilia, >> >> I have no firm views in this regard. However, I think Norbert Bollow and >> the excellent work done on mapping Internet Governance and  to explore the >> scope of the boundaries of key stakeholders so as to foster and create a >> better understanding and holistic view of how we can specifically advocate >> our issues better. >> >> There are some bodies who have overlapping roles and so it may be useful. >> I would suggest the creation of sub-themes in this regard. >> >> What are your thoughts Marilia and Deirdre? >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Marilia Maciel >> wrote: Hi Sala, >>> >>> >>> I believe that last IGF a general perception emerged that it is important >>> to coordinate and harmonize the current plurality of efforts to develop >>> principles for Internet regulation. Civil society advocated for it and the >>> result of an initial effort to compare initiatives has been set forth by >>> Wolfgang. I think that a multistakeholder concerted effort on this direction >>> could take place this year, culminating on the taking stocks session. >>> >>> I think this makes much more sense than asking who regulates the >>> Internet, a too broad question that would lead to very limited outcomes, in >>> my opinion. The other topics are relevant, but not appropriate for a session >>> on taking stocks and the way forward. >>> >>> Best, >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree Deirdre >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Deirdre Williams >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 1)    WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>>> I still think it would be interesting to consider as well as this topic >>>>> "How are the rules for the Internet set". Awareness of the process >>>>> often leads to identification of the responsible actors. >>>>> Deirdre >>>>> >>>>> On 27 February 2012 06:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will >>>>>> assume that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>> Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >>>>>>> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with the >>>>>>> following:- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>>>>>> come up with a coherent description of the theme >>>>>>> come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme >>>>>>> (following the way it was organised in 2011) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on >>>>>>> Taking Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would like >>>>>>> to ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by >>>>>>> the list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people >>>>>>> can volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 >>>>>>> so it can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our >>>>>>> current MAG representatives to take this forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >>>>>>> follows:- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1)    WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2)    IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3)    ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4)    SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Feb 28 02:16:55 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:16:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Taking Stock and the Way Forward [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies, the option is not A or B, but a split session, 90 minutes each. My mistake. Adam On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Discussion of Internet principles was suggested for the IG4D session: > > •       A.      INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES FRAMEWORK > •       B.      BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE > •       FACILITATING PARTICIPATION FOR ALL IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY AND > KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY > •       PROMOTING HUMAN, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT > •       CONTRIBUTING TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION > •       INFRASTRUCTURE, INVESTMENT ISSUES > •       SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES > •       [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK] > > > > > Pretty much either A, principles, or B some or all of the rest, > > I'd go for A in IG4D. > > Taking stock, a synthesis of the event makes sense. it was suggested > such a synthesis might focus on how the development theme has been > addressed throughout the meeting. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:58 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Hi Sala, >> >> I believe that last IGF a general perception emerged that it is important to >> coordinate and harmonize the current plurality of efforts to develop >> principles for Internet regulation. Civil society advocated for it and the >> result of an initial effort to compare initiatives has been set forth by >> Wolfgang. I think that a multistakeholder concerted effort on this direction >> could take place this year, culminating on the taking stocks session. >> >> I think this makes much more sense than asking who regulates the Internet, a >> too broad question that would lead to very limited outcomes, in my opinion. >> The other topics are relevant, but not appropriate for a session on taking >> stocks and the way forward. >> >> Best, >> Marília >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> I agree Deirdre >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Deirdre Williams >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> 1)    WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>> I still think it would be interesting to consider as well as this topic >>>> "How are the rules for the Internet set". Awareness of the process often >>>> leads to identification of the responsible actors. >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> On 27 February 2012 06:46, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> If there are no comments or contributions to this thread, we will assume >>>>> that we do not wish to make any comments in this area. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> The theme for IGF 2012 is Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, >>>>>> Economic and Social Development. The MAG has various groups dealing with the >>>>>> following:- >>>>>> >>>>>> consolidate the list of topics under the theme >>>>>> come up with a coherent description of the theme >>>>>> come up with a main question and sub questions for the theme (following >>>>>> the way it was organised in 2011) >>>>>> >>>>>> We would encourage anyone interested in putting forward views on Taking >>>>>> Stock and the Way Forward by responding to this thread. We would like to >>>>>> ensure that this opportunity for consultation is actively addressed by the >>>>>> list. We will try to wrap this up by the 24th February, 2012 and people can >>>>>> volunteer to work on consolidating the same by the 24th February, 2012 so it >>>>>> can be put to the entire list for a 48 hour period before we ask our current >>>>>> MAG representatives to take this forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> Current list of topics that are being discussed by the MAG are as >>>>>> follows:- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1)    WHO SETS THE RULES FOR THE INTERNET? >>>>>> >>>>>> 2)    IMPACT OF INTERNET REGULATION ON TRADITIONAL MEDIA >>>>>> >>>>>> 3)    ACTIVISM AND THE INTERNET >>>>>> >>>>>> 4)    SYNTHESIS OF THE EVENT [SYNTHESISES OF THE EVENT] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> >>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 28 02:21:32 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:21:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Salanieta I found the magic square whether it functions I don't know may be it is like Lourdes water and bathing in the Ganges of the Egypt Spring [image: Inline images 1] aldo On 28 February 2012 02:29, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Is this for real? > http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320137#ixzz1ndQsHZs9 > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Aldo Matteucci 65, Pourtalèsstr. CH 3074 MURI b. Bern Switzerland aldo.matteucci at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004 (2).jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 34445 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 Tue Feb 28 03:41:17 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:41:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <058DBAD6-EC08-42C9-B301-3AB80E9CD068@uzh.ch> Think so. Nuked my history. Bill On Feb 28, 2012, at 2:29 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Is this for real? http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320137#ixzz1ndQsHZs9 > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Feb 28 03:52:22 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:52:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F4C95C6.8070602@digsys.bg> On 28.02.12 03:29, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Is this for real? > http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320137#ixzz1ndQsHZs9 > This is as much real as picking up your tapped phone (old days) hearing some strange noise, and asking politely "would you guys please pause recording my calls for a moment, I need to have an very private conversation right now" and they *of course* do as you please. 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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Tue Feb 28 03:58:02 2012 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:58:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1330419482.84463.YahooMailNeo@web171410.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Thank you for sharing this information Sala. The fact is that, while creating an account, very few people just click on the button "Accept" without reading the long text. Regards   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président www.rtcb.bi Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général www.bytc.bi Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Envoyé le : Mardi 28 février 2012 3h29 Objet : [governance] Is this for real? Is this for real?  http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320137#ixzz1ndQsHZs9  -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 05:06:52 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:06:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: at 13:29:20 on Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >Is this for real [Google web history] Deleting the web history associated with an account should be fairly safe - if it transpires that this is a lie (and such things have a tendency to leak out eventually) it would be catastrophic for the organisation. On the other hand, I've just looked at the Web History for my two main accounts, and one has never had it switched on and the other account has only a few entries a week, which shows how rarely I actually "log in", despite doing probably hundreds of Google searches a day. On the other other hand, I had heard they kept something a bit like the web history but linked to IP address and/or cookie, rather than account. This rather old article explains how: I don't know if they still do this. Much more detailed (but also old) article about Google tracking: -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Feb 28 05:10:41 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:10:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A_D?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ealing_with_the__Borg_=28Or__=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Real?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ly_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> (mgurst@vcn.bc.ca) References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: <20120228101041.74B004F53@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote (addressing primarily McTim): > It is I think only a matter of time before this is widely recognized > politically and some sort of regulatory environment established--it is > probably only delayed because of the speed of evolution of the tech, the > technological illiteracy of most politicians (among the last groups in the > world to move into the email enabled world--according to studies in > various countries), and the difficulty of transnational regulation and the > absence of a framework through which such regulation could be introduced > and managed. All these seem to be pretty serious difficulties in my eyes (even thouh an --admittedly far from perfect-- framework for the introduction and management of such regulation already exists, see my last paragraph below)... and add to that the fact that any attempt at such regulation must be careful to avoid bad side effects auch as making it prohibitively difficult for small providers to comply, or making it too difficult or risky to provide email or other communication services to people in other countries. Plus the political obstacles that you'll face from people who are concerned about the possibility of such negative side-effects and who would therefore rather avoid such regulation altogether -- unless you are careful to remove these risks before you enter the political arena, it wouldn't be just industry lobbyists who oppose proposals for such regulation, but many civil society folks also. > Your reference to PEBKAC is ridiculous... Yes, the particular context of that PEBKAC assertion was ridiculous because it was pointing a finger in the wrong direction. But I believe that there's a significant amount of PEBKAC involved at Google. In fact, I would suggest that your experience points to significant problems at three levels: (A) PEBKAC at Google - whoever either disabled your account manually or wrote the script that did that (B) Lack of adequate policies and processes at Google to avoid problem (A) or at least get it fixed quickly if it occurs (C) In the existing framework of Internet governance, lack of any effective action aimed at avoiding or minimizing problem (A) or (B). (I draw the conclusion about the lack of effective action aimed at avoiding or minimizing problem (A) or (B) both from your experience and from the fact that someone as knowledgeable as McTim about the existing framework of Internet governance can even disagree with our assertion that there is a problem here that should be addressed at the Internet governance level. :-) ) To make my position quite explicit, I think that the path of effective Internet governance action regarding this kind of problem doesn't start with calling for governmental regulation, but rather it starts with developing (at IETF) a reasonable Internet Standard that specifies the MUSTs and SHOULDs of responsibly providing email services to members of the general public. If once we have such a standards-track RFC, the situation still doesn't improve, we could then talk about escalating the issue by means of a fast-track submission of the RFC to become an ISO/IEC International Standard, and then suggesting to governments to make conformance to that standard legally mandatory. But I have a feeling that a standards-track RFC would sufficiently influence the major providers of web-based email services that such escalation wouldn't even be needed. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 05:17:37 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:17:37 +1200 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Scary :o On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > at 13:29:20 on Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > writes > >Is this for real > > [Google web history] > > Deleting the web history associated with an account should be fairly > safe - if it transpires that this is a lie (and such things have a > tendency to leak out eventually) it would be catastrophic for the > organisation. > > On the other hand, I've just looked at the Web History for my two main > accounts, and one has never had it switched on and the other account has > only a few entries a week, which shows how rarely I actually "log in", > despite doing probably hundreds of Google searches a day. > > On the other other hand, I had heard they kept something a bit like the > web history but linked to IP address and/or cookie, rather than account. > This rather old article explains how: > > protect-privacy-10736> > > I don't know if they still do this. > > Much more detailed (but also old) article about Google tracking: > > history-11016> > -- > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 05:41:05 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:41:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?4=3A_Dealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Withou?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?t_Really_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: Infuriating. And having had a bit of email hell recently (that's forced me to use gmail not to escape from it) I get your angst. But, part of your blog you says "According to the Google search I just did some 720,341,564 people use gmail all over the world." and, "Why for example, gmail/Google hasn’t spent the money to set up an Ombudsperson service with an email that someone actually reads and answers is something that would, if Google were as I mentioned selling milk or mining coal, be something that legislatures would be compelling them to do…" Think the answer is in the business model (it's the "cost of free", you might get this program for your classes ) and number you found 720,341,564; it's not possible to provide customer service to 720,341,564 people. Is it? And you can also try gmail-support at google.com Adam On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm still not recovered... So sending this from a back-up account--notably > a community network that I at one time used as my primary account but > which I gave up for the siren song of gmail :(.  The Vancouver Community > Network has been providing volunteer based, free email service for about > 15 years or so and has done it reliably and with remarkably little > downtime or system failure. Also, they are very responsive and just down > the road (I've been on their Board off and on for years... (There is I > think a significant message there as well... > > But to reply to McTim (and Norbert)... > > At one level my issues with gmail are consumer protection issues -- which > however, since they seem to be transnational it is hard to see who/how I > can invoke these (but I could be wrong... > > But at a deeper level I think it is not simply protecting the consumer but > regulating a utility... My guess is that if we asked virtually any > population in the world the appropriate set of questions the result would > be that they experience email not as a "consumer good" but rather as a > necessary element of their day to day infrastructure as a citizen, > consumer, business operator, parent etc.etc. And that any significant > disruption would be experienced in more or less the same manner as a > disruption in any other significant utility/infrastructure of modern > life... > > It is I think only a matter of time before this is widely recognized > politically and some sort of regulatory environment established--it is > probably only delayed because of the speed of evolution of the tech, the > technological illiteracy of most politicians (among the last groups in the > world to move into the email enabled world--according to studies in > various countries), and the difficulty of transnational regulation and the > absence of a framework through which such regulation could be introduced > and managed. > > Your reference to PEBKAC is ridiculous... I'm reasonably > well-educated/informed/intelligent... I made best efforts as indicated in > my blog post and I found myself in gmail hell (where I still reside BTW... > I've been searching around in gmail "help" and found many other > people--some who appear rather more technically literate than myself > similarly lost somewhere in the antechamber of Kafka's Castle/trying to > communicate with the Borg (HAL?).. and from various comments and my blog > and particularly private emails many many other people have similar > problems... when a problem because sufficiently common it moves from being > the victims problem to being the originators' problem or at least it > should... > > And as various other people have noted gmail is not a "free" (as in > benevolent) service... getting people to gmail--which Google has and > continues to aggressively attempt to do is part of their business model > where they take the information which folks using their mail service gives > them access to and they then sell that (at very considerable profit) to > various folks with an interest. > > Best, > > Mike > > >> McTim wrote: >>> On 2/27/12, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> > Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> > >>> >> Folks may be interested in my current experiences in the online >>> world. >>> >> >>> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing-with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ >>> > >>> > Thanks a lot for documenting this experience and thereby an issue that >>> > Internet governance needs to address. >>> >>> Why does "Internet governance" need to address this?  It's a free >>> (best effort) service...OF COURSE they won't have an army of people >>> helping you with your email? >> >> In this particular case, Mike was in fact paying Google actual money >> for this service, because he wanted a bigger mailbox than what they >> offer for free, but that's not very relevant to the main point here >> as I see it. >> >>> I see no problem that needs solving here... PEBKAC, no? >> >> In my eyes, it is a problem when an essential (to a particular end-user) >> infrastructure, that the end-user relies on for important things, can >> suddenly become unavailable for days without any reasonably way to >> solve the problem. >> >> Note that "simply start using a different email address" is *not* a >> reasonable way to solve the problem, when there's no reasonable way >> to notify everyone who has the old email address. >> >> Maybe it should be recommended for everyone to use a domain name of >> their own for their email? Of course, in developing countries, a lot >> of people have an income which is so low in terms of dollars that it >> would be prohibitively expensive to use a second-level .com or >> comparitively priced domain name for this, but nothing would stop >> e.g. CCTLD operators from using their existing infrastructure to offer >> e.g. inexpensive third-level domain registrations under a special >> second-level domain under their CCTLD. >> >> Google and others could still offer to provide the essential same >> email service. People would use it by setting up an MX DNS record >> pointing to e.g. googlemail.com - but with this kind of setup, they'd >> be able to switch to a different email service provider when they want, >> for example if Google suddenly decides to stop providing their service >> for a particular email address, like they did in Mike's case. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> !DSPAM:2676,4f4baf3a25622006457889! >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Feb 28 06:29:01 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:29:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Dealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Re?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ally_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: (message from Adam Peake on Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:41:05 +0900) References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: <20120228112901.849E74F53@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > Think the answer is in the business model (it's the "cost of free", If it's part of the "cost of free" that the service fails to meet fundamental quality expectations which for important communication infrastructures like this are in fact human rights, and if furthermore it's an economic effect of the availability of such gratis or near-gratis services that more expensive services with better quality cannot be viably provided, then IMO it clearly follows that Internet governance action is needed to address the problem. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Feb 28 06:42:52 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:42:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: at 22:17:37 on Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes > [Google web history] >Scary :o It's the tip of the iceberg. Data being collected, and permissions given, are much broader than people generally realise. The most recent is perhaps "Facebook reading your emails". Although in this case I agree with the analysis that often even if a permission is granted, it doesn't mean it's being used (even in a benign way, let alone a malicious way). Looking at the Facebook Android App, and posting here without comment, it requires (amongst others) the following permissions: Read SMS messages stored on your phone. Receive and process SMS messages (allows monitoring or deleting without showing them to you). Write to SMS messages stored on your phone. Send SMS messages. Read & Modify all of the contact(address) data stored on your phone. Manage accounts, including adding and removing accounts. Read phone state (including your phone number and the phone number you are connected to). -- 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 Tue Feb 28 07:01:29 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:01:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Dealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Re?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ally_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <20120228112901.849E74F53@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120228112901.849E74F53@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, On 2/28/12, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: >> Think the answer is in the business model (it's the "cost of free", > > If it's part of the "cost of free" that the service fails to meet > fundamental quality expectations which for important communication > infrastructures like this are in fact human rights, and if > furthermore it's an economic effect of the availability of such > gratis or near-gratis services that more expensive services with > better quality cannot be viably provided, then IMO it clearly > follows that Internet governance action is needed to address the > problem. what action and by whom? IF (and it's pretty big IF IMHO) email is a public utility then surely it should be regulated/provided by states, no? This is a can of worms I would certainly want to avoid. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Tue Feb 28 07:25:16 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 07:25:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> Sala, it is real... the article is based on EFF's Feb 21st Article "How to Remove Your Google Search History Before Google's New Privacy Policy Takes Effect" https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/how-remove-your-google-search-history-googles-new-privacy-policy-takes-effect It is important to note that disabling Web History in your Google account will not prevent Google from gathering and storing this information and using it for internal purposes. On 2012-02-27, at 8:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Is this for real? http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/320137#ixzz1ndQsHZs9 > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Feb 28 07:50:14 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:50:14 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Dealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Re?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ally_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:01:29 +0000) References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120228112901.849E74F53@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120228125014.D37C04F53@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > what action and by whom? I have in recent postings suggested two possible strategies for addressing the kind of problem that Mike had with Gmail, together with actors able to take such action: a) The problem could be addressed by empowering end users to switch email service providers without changing their email addresses. I suggested that CCTLD operators would be able to make a category of inexpensive third-level domain names available for this. b) The problem could be addressed by creating a standards-track RFC that promotes better behavior by specifying MUSTs and SHOULDs that will, when followed by companies like Google, resolve the problem. This would obviously be an action to be taken at IETF. (If contrary to my expectations, a good RFC is created but not followed, I said the issue could still be escalated by submitting the RFC to ISO/IEC and then legislative action to declare conformance to the resulting legally required for a category of companies.) > IF (and it's pretty big IF IMHO) email is a public utility This is a question of definition of the term "public utility" to a large extent -- email and any other service that can without fundamental problem be provided from anywhere in the world (provided there is good Internet Protocol transport layer connectivity) should certainly economically and legally be considered to be not in the same category of public utilities as traditional public utilities like the provision of water, electricity and traditional telephone service that involve digging ditches or hanging wires on poles to connect end users to the service. > then surely it should be regulated/provided by states, no? This is > a can of worms I would certainly want to avoid. Absolutely! I'd be willing to accept "regulation by states" only if it is based on a reasonable standard that has been created by an Internet governance organization of worldwide scope, by means of a reasonable consensus-oriented process in which everyone is welcome to participate as long as they're willing and able to participate constructively. Only after this consensus process has concluded would states maybe decide to make conformance to the standard legally required for some category of companies. That way we wouldn't be at risk of getting different requirements in various countries, some of them incompatible with requirements elsewhere on the net, some of them in fact violating human rights, some of them not even making sense technically, etc. 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 kichango at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 08:07:34 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:07:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the other hand, when I followed the steps indicated I never found the link "Remove all Web History" -- from "Go to web history" I only got to a page at the bottom of which there are two options: "No thanks" and "Turn web history on" (the text above just describes what the user can get with web history.) Will "No thanks" do it, or is it that "Remove all Web History" is not allowed in some countries (say, US for instance.) Thanks, Mawaki On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > at 22:17:37 on Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > writes > >>  [Google web history] > > >> Scary :o > > > It's the tip of the iceberg. Data being collected, and permissions given, > are much broader than people generally realise. > > The most recent is perhaps "Facebook reading your emails". > > ion-it-s-spying-on-text-messages> > > Although in this case I agree with the analysis that often even if a > permission is granted, it doesn't mean it's being used (even in a benign > way, let alone a malicious way). > > Looking at the Facebook Android App, and posting here without comment, it > requires (amongst others) the following permissions: > > Read SMS messages stored on your phone. > Receive and process SMS messages (allows monitoring or deleting without >  showing them to you). > Write to SMS messages stored on your phone. > Send SMS messages. > Read & Modify all of the contact(address) data stored on your phone. > Manage accounts, including adding and removing accounts. > Read phone state (including your phone number and the phone number you >  are connected to). > -- > 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 Tue Feb 28 08:56:26 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:56:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 08:07:34 on Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Mawaki Chango writes >On the other hand, when I followed the steps indicated I never found >the link "Remove all Web History" -- from "Go to web history" I only >got to a page at the bottom of which there are two options: "No >thanks" and "Turn web history on" (the text above just describes what >the user can get with web history.) > >Will "No thanks" do it, or is it that "Remove all Web History" is not >allowed in some countries (say, US for instance.) The dialogue you saw was for an account which did not have web history enabled, so there is nothing to remove. -- 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 Tue Feb 28 09:07:08 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:07:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Dealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Re?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ally_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <20120228125014.D37C04F53@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120228112901.849E74F53@quill.bollow.ch> <20120228125014.D37C04F53@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 2/28/12, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> what action and by whom? > > I have in recent postings suggested two possible strategies for > addressing the kind of problem that Mike had with Gmail, together > with actors able to take such action: > > a) The problem could be addressed by empowering end users to switch > email service providers without changing their email addresses. I > suggested that CCTLD operators would be able to make a category of > inexpensive third-level domain names available for this. Google and KENIC have already done this in Kenya, but I digress. How would this alleviate a situation like M.G.s? > > b) The problem could be addressed by creating a standards-track RFC > that promotes better behavior Please specify what behavior needs to be better. IIUC, user is POPing years of his gmail into outlook. How can you legislate/write an RFC about that? If i am offering a free webmail, and someone tries to POP 12 Gigs of data off it, I'm going to have a script that automagically shuts down that behavior until a human can look into it! by specifying MUSTs and SHOULDs that > will, when followed by companies like Google, resolve the problem. > This would obviously be an action to be taken at IETF. (If contrary to > my expectations, a good RFC is created but not followed, I said the > issue could still be escalated by submitting the RFC to ISO/IEC and > then legislative action to declare conformance to the resulting > legally required for a category of companies.) I think that's just adding another layer of bureaucracy to fix a problem that doesn't exist. > >> IF (and it's pretty big IF IMHO) email is a public utility > > This is a question of definition of the term "public utility" to a > large extent -- email and any other service that can without > fundamental problem be provided from anywhere in the world (provided > there is good Internet Protocol transport layer connectivity) should > certainly economically and legally be considered to be not in the same > category of public utilities as traditional public utilities like > the provision of water, electricity and traditional telephone service > that involve digging ditches or hanging wires on poles to connect > end users to the service. am glad we agree! -- 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 daniel at digsys.bg Tue Feb 28 09:33:28 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:33:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> References: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> On 28.02.12 14:25, Robert Guerra wrote: > It is important to note that disabling Web History in your Google account will not prevent Google from gathering and storing this information and using it for internal purposes. It seems this will just instruct Google to not display to you, what information Google has collected about you. Something, that wasn't even available until recently, yet Google was collecting information about you since they exist. As it was mentioned a number of times, Google has always collected "anonymous" information about you and nothing currently will stop them doing that. "anonymous" in their muddy waters mean "we only associate it with your IP address, your browser version, screen resolution, few cookies we drop here and there and any other identifying information your browser/OS is willing to disclose". Thing is, the combination of the above is sufficiently unique. In recent times, it also includes geo-location information, including the (very) precise location of your home wifi network. This is real funny, I once made experiment with the later: while traveling, configured an AP with the same SSID that I have at home. When asked to locate me on the map, Google "found" me at my home location, even if I was few hundred km away from there. An interesting implication is that it is very likely law enforcement will have 'evidence' that I was at home using Internet at that time.... Google currently collects this information via at least three different means: - by having the ISPs voluntarily assign geo location of public hotspots; - by surveying cities with mobile instruments, typically in cars (Remember the WW2 Nazi surveying for illegal radio stations? :-)) - by using the millions of mobile devices with Android (and iPhones, I believe) to map precisely where the particular wireless network is. If let alone, Google will of course do as they please and will only be restrained by their imagination and the currently available technology. But as for Internet governance matters, the question is whether there should be line drawn on people privacy. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Tue Feb 28 09:48:25 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:48:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A_Dealin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=E2=80=9CBeing_Evil=E2=80=9D_Without_Real?= =?UTF-8?Q?ly_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: <20120228125014.D37C04F53@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120228112901.849E74F53@quill.bollow.ch> <20120228125014.D37C04F53@quill.bol! low.ch> Message-ID: <4F4CE939.5020703@digsys.bg> Disclaimer: I never ever use gmail, because in my opinion this is one of the stupidest thing a person can go. But then, I am able to run any number of my very own mail servers and this is apparently not like everyone else. On 28.02.12 14:50, Norbert Bollow wrote: > a) The problem could be addressed by empowering end users to switch > email service providers without changing their email addresses. I > suggested that CCTLD operators would be able to make a category of > inexpensive third-level domain names available for this. (with my ccTLD manager hat on) Having your very own domain name is not a luxury or difficult task for years, already. It is still very difficult to persuade people to go this route. People just don't get it. On the positive side, the number of domain names registered for that very purpose is rising. You don't have to use an ccTLD for this. Nevertheless, a number of ccTLDs have introduced, long ago 'private' (as for individuals) often lower-cost domain names. It is only natural to use the domain name for e-mail and other things. There have been some gTLDs set up for such purposes, such as .name.. didn't work much for e-mail. (with an additional mail server admin hat on) Then, there is the issue that many (most?) e-mail providers have hard time handling virtual domains. Even Google had hard time figuring this for a long time. Even if they figure out how to do it, it is either more complicated, as it involves cooperation between the provider and the customer, or there are other considerations, such as 'but they won't expose our (provider's) domain name to the world and thus will not generate free advertisement for our business'. This is also one of the reasons for sticking to gmail.com. (all hats off) The gmail phenomenon is part of the Internet phenomenon --- most people started using gmail just because it was fun, without putting much thinking on the "what if" part. Most didn't even realize it was Google behind that. In short, they took the bait. Then later, it was increasingly difficult to switch their e-mail address, because "everybody knows this address". Google even used an (white?) lie to hook more people: they marketed gmail as the 'independent' service, seeking the market, where e-mail was offered as part of the Internet service by the ISP, but if you switch ISP you would normally have to change your e-mail address. The part they didn't tell people was that they will be hooked to gmail.com instead. 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 pouzin at well.com Tue Feb 28 09:52:22 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:52:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: <4F4BFB9A.3020408@apc.org> References: <1330362301.38747.yint-ygo-j2me@web161001.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F4BFB9A.3020408@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi listers, I had sent some suggestions to Sala in bullet style (see below). Here attached is a more literary presentation. If this proposal reaches enough consensus, contributors are invited to join in the preparation. Cordially. Louis - - - From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 18:48 Subject: [governance] Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] To: Lee W McKnight Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" I agree with Louis' suggestion. I hav Cheers ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Louis Pouzin (well) Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 15:17 Subject: [governance] On the MAG thematic working groups To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Hi Sala, I'd be interested in a sub-theme within managing critical internet resources: Multiple name spaces in internet - diversity of language scripts - regional spaces - brand names management - diversity of jurisdictions - directory structures - name collisions - scopes - inter-operability - (more) Worth a workshop with a half dozen stakeholders. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: eurolinc-wrksh-prop-1.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 3584 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 Tue Feb 28 10:21:24 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:21:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> References: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4F4CE5B8.8010604 at digsys.bg>, at 16:33:28 on Tue, 28 Feb 2012, Daniel Kalchev writes >In recent times, it also includes geo-location information, including >the (very) precise location of your home wifi network. > >This is real funny, I once made experiment with the later: while >traveling, configured an AP with the same SSID that I have at home. >When asked to locate me on the map, Google "found" me at my home >location, even if I was few hundred km away from there. I'm a bit surprised they are doing it on the SSID of the APs, not the MAC address. (You didn't say if your travelling AP was the same as the one you used to have at home). SSIDs are much less unique [apologies to grammar purists] than MAC addresses. -- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 11:07:40 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:07:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Below is the proposed final draft statement on Human Rights and the Internet (I changed "on" the internet to "and"). I incorporated the online comments received on the original draft, received both via email and on the web. To the best of my knowledge, I incorporated all suggestions received, except for the suggestion to reduce length by 50%, which would require sufficient redrafting as to require posting for comment again. That being said, by clarifying paragraph 4 concerning the "right to interfere" with the internet being far harder to justify than rights of free expression, and by eliminating a perhaps dated reference to SOPA/PIPA, the final statement is somewhat shorter. I also added a clause at the very end that states "and doing so without regard to frontiers", since "without regard to frontiers" is actual language used in human rights documents regarding free expression. The addition of this clause ties the ending of the statement with the beginning, which declares that the internet as a technology "without borders" has a twin in the form of human rights, or rights without borders. Please advise if I missed anything, otherwise, thanks for the opportunity to try to synthesize the consensus thought here. Paul Lehto, J.D. * Human Rights and the Internet* Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without borders. The open architecture of the Internet creates a new commons that facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology and design choices simultaneously extend human interaction in multiple directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously imaginable. This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for all, without the prominent downsides often associated with some actual implementations of government and religion. The most powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet is not where these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom of expression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given that the Internet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can any single business, national government, or person obtain and enforce a right to interfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack of clarity thought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come from” simply pales in comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted right to interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet. Any hypothetical “right to interfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of expression is far more difficult to justify and explain than upholding the natural human urge for self-expression and self-determination as a right. Thus, absent highly exceptional circumstances, in a contest between interference and free expression, free expression always has the better case, regardless of whether free expression is thought of as an enforceable legal right or not. Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting in ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, etc.) Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single country. In the general context of market freedom, the development of new technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and others who are creating the Internet in real time. The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. Therefore, the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever else they may occur, and the IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can maximize the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human experience for all people, making ever more real the human flourishing that is both the reality and the promise of the Internet, and doing so “without regard to frontiers.” -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 12:11:38 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 05:11:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear All, We would like to thank Paul Lehto for craftsmanship in weaving critical considerations in relation to Human Rights and the Internet. Noting that the Statement has been up for more than 48 hours, we also thank all those that contributed to the Statement Workspace (web) and email thread. It is now the 29th February, 2012 and we will be sending our Statement. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > Below is the proposed final draft statement on Human Rights and the > Internet (I changed "on" the internet to "and"). I incorporated the online > comments received on the original draft, received both via email and on the > web. To the best of my knowledge, I incorporated all suggestions received, > except for the suggestion to reduce length by 50%, which would require > sufficient redrafting as to require posting for comment again. That being > said, by clarifying paragraph 4 concerning the "right to interfere" with > the internet being far harder to justify than rights of free expression, > and by eliminating a perhaps dated reference to SOPA/PIPA, the final > statement is somewhat shorter. > > I also added a clause at the very end that states "and doing so without > regard to frontiers", since "without regard to frontiers" is actual > language used in human rights documents regarding free expression. The > addition of this clause ties the ending of the statement with the > beginning, which declares that the internet as a technology "without > borders" has a twin in the form of human rights, or rights without > borders. > > Please advise if I missed anything, otherwise, thanks for the opportunity > to try to synthesize the consensus thought here. > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > * > Human Rights and the Internet* > > Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their > technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without > borders. > > The open architecture of the Internet creates a new commons that > facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not > limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, > association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a > livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology > and design choices simultaneously extend human interaction in multiple > directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more > democratic basis than previously imaginable. > > This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the > Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the > Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by > already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought > leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as > “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have > caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining > democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for > all, without the prominent downsides often associated with some actual > implementations of government and religion. > > The most powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet > is not where these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in > courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the > Internet arises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom of > expression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the > very nature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given > that the Internet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can > any single business, national government, or person obtain and enforce a > right to interfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack > of clarity thought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come > from” simply pales in comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted > right to interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet. Any > hypothetical “right to interfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of > expression is far more difficult to justify and explain than upholding the > natural human urge for self-expression and self-determination as a right. > Thus, absent highly exceptional circumstances, in a contest between > interference and free expression, free expression always has the better > case, regardless of whether free expression is thought of as an enforceable > legal right or not. > > Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered > with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including > businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, > administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more > choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the > Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the > Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much > “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of > the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is > extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting in > ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully > understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public > interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair or > impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim that > they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwise > interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a business > acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, > etc.) > > Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules > of host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights > laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that > domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be > met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single > country. > > In the general context of market freedom, the development of new > technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their > regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of > regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities > without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the > countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on > the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This > requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and > others who are creating the Internet in real time. > > The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education > concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the > context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions > regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet > engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is > impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct > effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place > in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers > making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of > human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to > preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human > rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be > decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of > potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized > ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. > > Therefore, the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to > be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC > condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever else they > may occur, and the IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to > support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that > developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can > maximize the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human > experience for all people, making ever more real the human flourishing that > is both the reality and the promise of the Internet, and doing so “without > regard to frontiers.” > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4026 (cell) > > > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 28 12:26:52 2012 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:26:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> , Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F8719BB90BBDA@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Well-crafted statement! Take a bow, Paul. - Carlton ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto [lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:07 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Below is the proposed final draft statement on Human Rights and the Internet (I changed "on" the internet to "and"). I incorporated the online comments received on the original draft, received both via email and on the web. To the best of my knowledge, I incorporated all suggestions received, except for the suggestion to reduce length by 50%, which would require sufficient redrafting as to require posting for comment again. That being said, by clarifying paragraph 4 concerning the "right to interfere" with the internet being far harder to justify than rights of free expression, and by eliminating a perhaps dated reference to SOPA/PIPA, the final statement is somewhat shorter. I also added a clause at the very end that states "and doing so without regard to frontiers", since "without regard to frontiers" is actual language used in human rights documents regarding free expression. The addition of this clause ties the ending of the statement with the beginning, which declares that the internet as a technology "without borders" has a twin in the form of human rights, or rights without borders. Please advise if I missed anything, otherwise, thanks for the opportunity to try to synthesize the consensus thought here. Paul Lehto, J.D. Human Rights and the Internet Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without borders. The open architecture of the Internet creates a new commons that facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology and design choices simultaneously extend human interaction in multiple directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously imaginable. This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for all, without the prominent downsides often associated with some actual implementations of government and religion. The most powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet is not where these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom of expression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given that the Internet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can any single business, national government, or person obtain and enforce a right to interfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack of clarity thought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come from” simply pales in comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted right to interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet. Any hypothetical “right to interfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of expression is far more difficult to justify and explain than upholding the natural human urge for self-expression and self-determination as a right. Thus, absent highly exceptional circumstances, in a contest between interference and free expression, free expression always has the better case, regardless of whether free expression is thought of as an enforceable legal right or not. Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting in ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, etc.) Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single country. In the general context of market freedom, the development of new technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and others who are creating the Internet in real time. The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. Therefore, the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever else they may occur, and the IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can maximize the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human experience for all people, making ever more real the human flourishing that is both the reality and the promise of the Internet, and doing so “without regard to frontiers.” -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 12:40:05 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:40:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B07CE74@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8CEC457242C2770-18B8-325B@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com> I'm afraid I must agree that less would have been more. Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: Paul Lehto Cc: governance ; Lee W McKnight Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 6:13 pm Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations] Dear All, We would like to thank Paul Lehto for craftsmanship in weaving critical considerations in relation to Human Rights and the Internet. Noting that the Statement has been up for more than 48 hours, we also thank all those that contributed to the Statement Workspace (web) and email thread. It is now the 29th February, 2012 and we will be sending our Statement. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: Below is the proposed final draft statement on Human Rights and the Internet (I changed "on" the internet to "and"). I incorporated the online comments received on the original draft, received both via email and on the web. To the best of my knowledge, I incorporated all suggestions received, except for the suggestion to reduce length by 50%, which would require sufficient redrafting as to require posting for comment again. That being said, by clarifying paragraph 4 concerning the "right to interfere" with the internet being far harder to justify than rights of free expression, and by eliminating a perhaps dated reference to SOPA/PIPA, the final statement is somewhat shorter. I also added a clause at the very end that states "and doing so without regard to frontiers", since "without regard to frontiers" is actual language used in human rights documents regarding free expression. The addition of this clause ties the ending of the statement with the beginning, which declares that the internet as a technology "without borders" has a twin in the form of human rights, or rights without borders. Please advise if I missed anything, otherwise, thanks for the opportunity to try to synthesize the consensus thought here. Paul Lehto, J.D. Human Rights and the Internet Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without borders. The open architecture of the Internet creates a new commons that facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology and design choices simultaneously extend human interaction in multiple directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously imaginable. This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for all, without the prominent downsides often associated with some actual implementations of government and religion. The most powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet is not where these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom of expression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given that the Internet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can any single business, national government, or person obtain and enforce a right to interfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack of clarity thought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come from” simply pales in comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted right to interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet. Any hypothetical “right to interfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of expression is far more difficult to justify and explain than upholding the natural human urge for self-expression and self-determination as a right. Thus, absent highly exceptional circumstances, in a contest between interference and free expression, free expression always has the better case, regardless of whether free expression is thought of as an enforceable legal right or not. Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting in ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, etc.) Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single country. In the general context of market freedom, the development of new technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and others who are creating the Internet in real time. The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. Therefore, the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever else they may occur, and the IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can maximize the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human experience for all people, making ever more real the human flourishing that is both the reality and the promise of the Internet, and doing so “without regard to frontiers.” -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 (cell) -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 12:45:52 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:45:52 +0000 Subject: mixed threads and declaring consensus (WAS Re: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations]) Message-ID: Hi, On 2/28/12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > We would like to thank Paul Lehto for craftsmanship in weaving critical > considerations in relation to Human Rights and the Internet. Noting that > the Statement has been up for more than 48 hours, we also thank all those > that contributed to the Statement Workspace (web) and email thread. > > It is now the 29th February, 2012 and we will be sending our Statement. Did you just declare consensus? How are you and Izumi measuring consensus? Is it "no objection, therefore everyone agrees"? -- 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 Feb 28 13:04:08 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:04:08 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Blogpost=3A_Gmail_Hell_Day_4=3A?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Dealing_with_the_Borg_=28Or_=93Being_Evil=94_Without_Re?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ally_Thinking_About_It?= In-Reply-To: (message from McTim on Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:07:08 +0000) References: <1330004191.24108.YahooMailNeo@web161002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4F48E41B.9000302@itforchange.net> <9B28D3E1-8048-492B-A236-61DDDF909475@acm.org> <31ee5d6864489e2d06c4f01fddcaf783.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120227122415.13907437A@quill.bollow.ch> <20120227162717.01920437A@quill.bollow.ch> <9b68dfab885c20e4e74459a3a6cc96e8.squirrel@mail.vcn.bc.ca> <20120228112901.849E74F53@quill.bollow.ch> <20120228125014.D37C04F53@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120228180408.63CAF4F53@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > > a) The problem could be addressed by empowering end users to switch > > email service providers without changing their email addresses. I > > suggested that CCTLD operators would be able to make a category of > > inexpensive third-level domain names available for this. > > Google and KENIC have already done this in Kenya, but I digress. > > How would this alleviate a situation like M.G.s? If Google unexpetctedly closes down his email address, or otherwise stops providing a reasonable service, he can use a different service provider, or set up his own mailserver, and have his email go to the new place by updating the MX record. For computer users with more avarage skills, maybe current off-the-shelf software doesn't make these steps easy enough. But M.G. would have managed, I believe. > > b) The problem could be addressed by creating a standards-track RFC > > that promotes better behavior > > Please specify what behavior needs to be better. ** Never close down a service without fair warning on the basis ** of actions of the user that the user could reasonably expect ** to be acceptable. I think that if users are given several GBs worth of mailbox quota, it should be considered normal usage to actually have several GBs of email there. Google representatives have pretty prominently given talks mentioning the work of their "data liberation team" in ways that gave at least me the expectation that at least for Google's major service offerings (this certainly includes Gmail), one can always download one's data when desired. So in my eyes the reasonable expectation is that one should be able to download one's entire mailbox contents without ill effects, even if that's several GBs of data. If Google doesn't want that to happen without e.g. the end user explicitly confirming "yes this is what I want to do", they could disable this functionality in their POP server with a web interface based override. But they let the user do it and *then* they close down the user's email address without any warning. That I think is unacceptable. > IIUC, user is POPing years of his gmail into outlook. How can you > legislate/write an RFC about that? If i am offering a free webmail, > and someone tries to POP 12 Gigs of data off it, I'm going to have > a script that automagically shuts down that behavior until a human > can look into it! Nota bene, they didn't just shut down "that behavior", but the email address in its entirety. And scripts that shut down things "until a human can look into it" are generally only appropriate if things are organized so that someone will actually be able to look into the matter in a timely manner. And what would the human do? Check if it's a case of someone downloading their entire mailbox, and then re-enable the account? In that case, what was the point of closing it down in the first place? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Feb 28 13:08:47 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:08:47 +0900 Subject: mixed threads and declaring consensus (WAS Re: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations]) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Doesn't seem like consensus to me. Could we at least have time to read and review this statement. Then 48 hours. Not even clear to me why or where we're submitting ant statement to. There's no consultation on going. Thanks, Adam On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On 2/28/12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> We would like to thank Paul Lehto for craftsmanship in weaving critical >> considerations in relation to Human Rights and the Internet. Noting that >> the Statement has been up for more than 48 hours, we also thank all those >> that contributed to the Statement Workspace (web) and email thread. >> >> It is now the 29th February, 2012 and we will be sending our Statement. > > Did you just declare consensus? > > How are you and Izumi measuring consensus?  Is it "no objection, > therefore everyone agrees"? > > > -- > 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 Tue Feb 28 13:09:39 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:09:39 +1200 Subject: mixed threads and declaring consensus (WAS Re: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations]) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > > Did you just declare consensus? > > How are you and Izumi measuring consensus? Is it "no objection, > therefore everyone agrees"? > > Dear McTim, As you know an email was sent to the list on February 20th, 2012 asking for Volunteers to initiate a Draft Text for the purposes of putting it to the IGC as a community for comments and feedback to enable us to send on the 29th February, 2012. You are right (mixing up timezones - was up at 3am again for another conference call and confused dates and times). The date and time in Geneva at the this instant is *Tuesday, 28 February 2012, 19:04:39* *CET.* The call for comments and contributions have a deadline in this instance. People have been responding to the email thread and others to the Statement Workspace. The contributions were consolidated. Thank you for correcting me McTim (I really need to get some sleep). We have 12 hours for the list to give their final comments and the coordinators will see whether we have consensus or rough consensus. As you know the Expert Panel sits today in Geneva. Two versions of the Statement are up on the Statement Workspace, both the first draft and the final draft. Final Draft is posted here:http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/56 Please respond to the Statement Workspace provided. We would like to > release this Statement on the 29th February, 2012 in Geneva. > -- > 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 Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 13:29:50 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:29:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and the Internet [Final Call for Consensus] Message-ID: Dear All, A Call for Volunteers to initiate a draft statement was made and Paul Lehto responded. The first draft was put to the IGC through email and the Statement Workspace for comments and contributions. We thank Paul and all those that contributed. The intention was to finalise our position to enable us to release a Statement by the 29th February, 2012 as the United Nations Human Rights Council is set to convene. Whilst we have missed the 13th February, 2012 deadline for Submissions, they can still factor in our Statement in the Panel Papers so it is important that we get this out post haste. I am mindful that at the time I write this email, it is *Tuesday, 28 February 2012, 19:20:54* *CET* You can read the edited Statement on "Human Rights and the Internet" via the Statement Workspace which is http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/56 May we have your views whether you agree for this Statement to be released to the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday 29 February, 2012? Please vote:- 1. Yes 2. No 3. Unsure; 4. Other [Add comments] -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 13:42:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:42:34 +1200 Subject: mixed threads and declaring consensus (WAS Re: [governance] Re: Managing Critical Internet Resources [IGF 2012 - MAG Consultations]) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Doesn't seem like consensus to me. Could we at least have time to > read and review this statement. Then 48 hours. > The Statement has been up for about 44 hours in the email thread as well as Statement Workspace where an invitation was issued for people to comment. Some have taken the time to comment via email and others via the workspace. (apologies - am getting my time mixed up from too many early morning meetings) > > Not even clear to me why or where we're submitting ant statement to. > There's no consultation on going. > > The IGC was alerted of the UN Council for Human Rights meeting on the 10th February, 2012 where a deadline of 13th February, 2012 was given for submissions. We missed this Deadline. However, I made a call for volunteers to draft. Paul Lehto kindly volunteered to initiate a Draft which was put to the list via email and statement workspace, For all intents and purposes, we were advised that whilst we missed the 13th February, 2012 deadline, we could still make it in the Panel Papers. But as you rightly pointed out, it's the IGC's collective call whether you wish to put a statement out or not. > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, McTim wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 2/28/12, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > >> Dear All, > >> > >> We would like to thank Paul Lehto for craftsmanship in weaving critical > >> considerations in relation to Human Rights and the Internet. Noting that > >> the Statement has been up for more than 48 hours, we also thank all > those > >> that contributed to the Statement Workspace (web) and email thread. > >> > >> It is now the 29th February, 2012 and we will be sending our Statement. > > > > Did you just declare consensus? > > > > How are you and Izumi measuring consensus? Is it "no objection, > > therefore everyone agrees"? > > > > > > -- > > 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 Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 13:48:04 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 06:48:04 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, From this email, you will see that the Statement was put up for 48 hour period, see email below. Sala However, to factor in your concerns, I have made a final call for consensus. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM Subject: Re: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Shahzad Ahmad Cc: Robert Guerra Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous issues to a cohesive succint statement. The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments and contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap this up in time by at least the 29th February, 2012. Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. > If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for > contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the > statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a > Statement by the 29th February, 2012. > > The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place > between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: > http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx > > *Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email:* > Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual > report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session > will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of > Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel > event. > >> > >> > >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be > planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) > and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you > are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and > cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country > reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. > >> > >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the > panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if > possible. > >> > > Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human > Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting > in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? > > Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human > rights:- > > - privacy > - security > - freedom of expression > - intellectual property > > or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the >> Agenda: >> >> >> See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true >> >> >> Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet >> >> On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision >> to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at >> its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative >> of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. >> This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom >> of expression on the Internet. >> >> "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human >> rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister >> for Foreign Affairs. >> >> Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and >> protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, >> presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN >> Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl >> Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in >> La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of >> influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. >> This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude >> today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and >> representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and >> civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of >> expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human >> Rights Council for the first time. >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and >>> use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that >>> there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the >>> years. >>> >>> We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put >>> together a first draft for others to comment. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Robert, >>>> >>>> What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? >>>> Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. >>>> >>>> Best wishes & regards >>>> Shahzad >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Brett, >>>> > >>>> > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum >>>> should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that >>>> was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this >>>> past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and >>>> it was not accepted. >>>> > >>>> > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the >>>> meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes >>>> at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >>>> > is still being discussed. >>>> > >>>> > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated >>>> effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >>>> > >>>> > regards >>>> > >>>> > Robert >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > R. Guerra >>>> > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>> > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>> > >>>> > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Thanks Joy, >>>> >> >>>> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the >>>> High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb >>>> 29). >>>> >> >>>> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the >>>> realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil >>>> society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with >>>> confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the >>>> broader constellation of human rights. >>>> >> >>>> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and >>>> recommendations can be found here: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>>> >> >>>> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the >>>> actual Panel. >>>> >> >>>> >> Brett >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Brett Solomon >>>> >> Executive Director | Access >>>> >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>>> >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>>> >> Dear colleagues, >>>> >> >>>> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights >>>> Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>>> >> >>>> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >>>> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >>>> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >>>> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >>>> the panel event. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >>>> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >>>> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >>>> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >>>> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >>>> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >>>> Rue. >>>> >> >>>> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >>>> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >>>> possible. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Kind regards >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Joy Liddicoat >>>> >> >>>> >> Project Coordinator >>>> >> >>>> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>>> >> >>>> >> www.apc.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 >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 15:44:35 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:44:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It In-Reply-To: <20120228180408.63CAF4F53@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: My gmail service is now restored thanks be to the Google gods... And I'll be writing about the overall experience in a new blogpost... But apropos of this discussion... The issue I think isn't a technical one with a technical solution, rather my ills (and gmails attempts at resolution) would have been avoided more or less completely with a functioning, usable "help" facility at gmail. That there wasn't a human interface, that the "help forums" to which I was pointed are a completely out of control information flea market (try looking for a key to the lock on your front door in the Paris Peuce for example..., that nobody at gmail ever seems to answer their emails all resulted in a very significant interruption in my service and who knows what direct or indirect costs to me... And imagine if in the not unlikely circumstance there had been an email caught up in the impasse unbeknownst to me as the recipient and unbeknownst to the sender which was of even life or death significance... And for anyone who is interested gmail is not "free" (check Google's cash/profit position). They are getting my (and your) information for free via email and reselling it into the marketplace with a very considerable margin. I'm willing to make that transaction in full knowledge of their activities, but I do expect some customer service on their end of the bargain. And I agree with Norbert's arguments below including that I'm paying Google to store the extra gigs of mail on my behalf... They offered me the service and I bought it--and then they denied me access to my property at considerable cost/damages to myself. I think it is arguable that email is now what might be classified as both a utility http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+Utilities and an "essential service" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_services and would, I believe under certain circumstances (war for example) be treated as such by governments. What that implies to me at least, is that there is the need for regulation to ensure a minimum level of service and service standards including in this instance a minimally acceptable and usable "help" function. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:04 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It McTim wrote: > > a) The problem could be addressed by empowering end users to switch > > email service providers without changing their email addresses. I > > suggested that CCTLD operators would be able to make a category of > > inexpensive third-level domain names available for this. > > Google and KENIC have already done this in Kenya, but I digress. > > How would this alleviate a situation like M.G.s? If Google unexpetctedly closes down his email address, or otherwise stops providing a reasonable service, he can use a different service provider, or set up his own mailserver, and have his email go to the new place by updating the MX record. For computer users with more avarage skills, maybe current off-the-shelf software doesn't make these steps easy enough. But M.G. would have managed, I believe. > > b) The problem could be addressed by creating a standards-track RFC > > that promotes better behavior > > Please specify what behavior needs to be better. ** Never close down a service without fair warning on the basis ** of actions of the user that the user could reasonably expect ** to be acceptable. I think that if users are given several GBs worth of mailbox quota, it should be considered normal usage to actually have several GBs of email there. Google representatives have pretty prominently given talks mentioning the work of their "data liberation team" in ways that gave at least me the expectation that at least for Google's major service offerings (this certainly includes Gmail), one can always download one's data when desired. So in my eyes the reasonable expectation is that one should be able to download one's entire mailbox contents without ill effects, even if that's several GBs of data. If Google doesn't want that to happen without e.g. the end user explicitly confirming "yes this is what I want to do", they could disable this functionality in their POP server with a web interface based override. But they let the user do it and *then* they close down the user's email address without any warning. That I think is unacceptable. > IIUC, user is POPing years of his gmail into outlook. How can you > legislate/write an RFC about that? If i am offering a free webmail, > and someone tries to POP 12 Gigs of data off it, I'm going to have a > script that automagically shuts down that behavior until a human can > look into it! Nota bene, they didn't just shut down "that behavior", but the email address in its entirety. And scripts that shut down things "until a human can look into it" are generally only appropriate if things are organized so that someone will actually be able to look into the matter in a timely manner. And what would the human do? Check if it's a case of someone downloading their entire mailbox, and then re-enable the account? In that case, what was the point of closing it down in the first place? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 16:06:49 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:06:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gmail is NOT a free service... The ad in my gmail screen for travel medicine services just as I'm about to leave on a trip to Brazil would I think give a rather direct lie to that dead parrot. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:07 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It On 2/28/12, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> what action and by whom? > > I have in recent postings suggested two possible strategies for > addressing the kind of problem that Mike had with Gmail, together with > actors able to take such action: > > a) The problem could be addressed by empowering end users to switch > email service providers without changing their email addresses. I > suggested that CCTLD operators would be able to make a category of > inexpensive third-level domain names available for this. Google and KENIC have already done this in Kenya, but I digress. How would this alleviate a situation like M.G.s? > > b) The problem could be addressed by creating a standards-track RFC > that promotes better behavior Please specify what behavior needs to be better. IIUC, user is POPing years of his gmail into outlook. How can you legislate/write an RFC about that? If i am offering a free webmail, and someone tries to POP 12 Gigs of data off it, I'm going to have a script that automagically shuts down that behavior until a human can look into it! by specifying MUSTs and SHOULDs that > will, when followed by companies like Google, resolve the problem. > This would obviously be an action to be taken at IETF. (If contrary to > my expectations, a good RFC is created but not followed, I said the > issue could still be escalated by submitting the RFC to ISO/IEC and > then legislative action to declare conformance to the resulting > legally required for a category of companies.) I think that's just adding another layer of bureaucracy to fix a problem that doesn't exist. > >> IF (and it's pretty big IF IMHO) email is a public utility > > This is a question of definition of the term "public utility" to a > large extent -- email and any other service that can without > fundamental problem be provided from anywhere in the world (provided > there is good Internet Protocol transport layer connectivity) should > certainly economically and legally be considered to be not in the same > category of public utilities as traditional public utilities like the > provision of water, electricity and traditional telephone service that > involve digging ditches or hanging wires on poles to connect end users > to the service. am glad we agree! -- 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 gpaque at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 16:30:39 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:00:39 -0430 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ** Mike makes a very important point here, so I am going to repeat it, with a small addition: Gmail and Google services are NOT FREE. We don't just pay by watching ads. We pay with our information, and by giving up our privacy. Cheers, Ginger On 28 February 2012 16:36, michael gurstein wrote: > Gmail is NOT a free service... > > The ad in my gmail screen for travel medicine services just as I'm about to > leave on a trip to Brazil would I think give a rather direct lie to that > dead parrot. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:07 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg > (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It > > > On 2/28/12, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > McTim wrote: > > > >> what action and by whom? > > > > I have in recent postings suggested two possible strategies for > > addressing the kind of problem that Mike had with Gmail, together with > > actors able to take such action: > > > > a) The problem could be addressed by empowering end users to switch > > email service providers without changing their email addresses. I > > suggested that CCTLD operators would be able to make a category of > > inexpensive third-level domain names available for this. > > Google and KENIC have already done this in Kenya, but I digress. > > How would this alleviate a situation like M.G.s? > > > > > b) The problem could be addressed by creating a standards-track RFC > > that promotes better behavior > > Please specify what behavior needs to be better. IIUC, user is POPing > years > of his gmail into outlook. How can you legislate/write an RFC about that? > If i am offering a free webmail, and someone tries to POP 12 Gigs of data > off it, I'm going to have a script that automagically shuts down that > behavior until a human can look into it! > > by specifying MUSTs and SHOULDs that > > will, when followed by companies like Google, resolve the problem. > > This would obviously be an action to be taken at IETF. (If contrary to > > my expectations, a good RFC is created but not followed, I said the > > issue could still be escalated by submitting the RFC to ISO/IEC and > > then legislative action to declare conformance to the resulting > > legally required for a category of companies.) > > I think that's just adding another layer of bureaucracy to fix a problem > that doesn't exist. > > > > > >> IF (and it's pretty big IF IMHO) email is a public utility > > > > This is a question of definition of the term "public utility" to a > > large extent -- email and any other service that can without > > fundamental problem be provided from anywhere in the world (provided > > there is good Internet Protocol transport layer connectivity) should > > certainly economically and legally be considered to be not in the same > > category of public utilities as traditional public utilities like the > > provision of water, electricity and traditional telephone service that > > involve digging ditches or hanging wires on poles to connect end users > > to the service. > > am glad we agree! > > -- > 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 toml at communisphere.com Tue Feb 28 17:37:40 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:37:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F4D5734.7040702@communisphere.com> +1 On 2/28/2012 4:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > *//* > Mike makes a very important point here, so I am going to repeat it, > with a small addition: > > Gmail and Google services are NOT FREE. > > We don't just pay by watching ads. We pay with our information, and by > giving up our privacy. > > Cheers, > Ginger > > > On 28 February 2012 16:36, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Gmail is NOT a free service... > > The ad in my gmail screen for travel medicine services just as I'm > about to > leave on a trip to Brazil would I think give a rather direct lie > to that > dead parrot. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > ] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:07 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with > the Borg > (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It > > > On 2/28/12, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > McTim > wrote: > > > >> what action and by whom? > > > > I have in recent postings suggested two possible strategies for > > addressing the kind of problem that Mike had with Gmail, > together with > > actors able to take such action: > > > > a) The problem could be addressed by empowering end users to switch > > email service providers without changing their email addresses. I > > suggested that CCTLD operators would be able to make a category of > > inexpensive third-level domain names available for this. > > Google and KENIC have already done this in Kenya, but I digress. > > How would this alleviate a situation like M.G.s? > > > > > b) The problem could be addressed by creating a standards-track RFC > > that promotes better behavior > > Please specify what behavior needs to be better. IIUC, user is > POPing years > of his gmail into outlook. How can you legislate/write an RFC > about that? > If i am offering a free webmail, and someone tries to POP 12 Gigs > of data > off it, I'm going to have a script that automagically shuts down that > behavior until a human can look into it! > > by specifying MUSTs and SHOULDs that > > will, when followed by companies like Google, resolve the problem. > > This would obviously be an action to be taken at IETF. (If > contrary to > > my expectations, a good RFC is created but not followed, I said the > > issue could still be escalated by submitting the RFC to ISO/IEC and > > then legislative action to declare conformance to the resulting > > legally required for a category of companies.) > > I think that's just adding another layer of bureaucracy to fix a > problem > that doesn't exist. > > > > > >> IF (and it's pretty big IF IMHO) email is a public utility > > > > This is a question of definition of the term "public utility" to a > > large extent -- email and any other service that can without > > fundamental problem be provided from anywhere in the world (provided > > there is good Internet Protocol transport layer connectivity) should > > certainly economically and legally be considered to be not in > the same > > category of public utilities as traditional public utilities > like the > > provision of water, electricity and traditional telephone > service that > > involve digging ditches or hanging wires on poles to connect end > users > > to the service. > > am glad we agree! > > -- > 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 toml at communisphere.com Tue Feb 28 17:41:02 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:41:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and the Internet [Final Call for Consensus] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F4D57FE.3010700@communisphere.com> Yes, release the document. Tom Lowenhaupt On 2/28/2012 1:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > A Call for Volunteers to initiate a draft statement was made and > Paul Lehto responded. The first draft was put to the IGC through > email and the Statement Workspace for comments and contributions. > We thank Paul and all those that contributed. > > The intention was to finalise our position to enable us to release > a Statement by the 29th February, 2012 as the United Nations Human > Rights Council is set to convene. > > Whilst we have missed the 13th February, 2012 deadline for > Submissions, they can still factor in our Statement in the Panel > Papers so it is important that we get this out post haste. I am > mindful that at the time I write this email, it is *Tuesday, 28 > February 2012, 19:20:54**CET* > > You can read the edited Statement on "Human Rights and the > Internet" via the Statement Workspace which is > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/56 > > May we have your views whether you agree for this Statement to be > released to the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday 29 February, > 2012? > > Please vote:- > > 1. Yes > 2. No > 3. Unsure; > 4. Other [Add comments] > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 28 17:45:03 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:45:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft compilation for IG4D Themes for IGF2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear List, I was asked by Sala to try to consolidate various ideas for the MAG working on the IGF2012 themes. I could not really "consolidate", but here are the compilations from the Pirate Pad and this mailing list: I just listed the different topics suggested under IG4D thread and Pirate Pad, and made in Question form. Not too much help, but given my very limited time now,I hope Fouad could use them somehow into his input to MAG. I will try to work on other themes as well, if not all at once. Many thanks, izumi -------------------------- IG4D themes •What are specific global Internet governance issues that have particular relevance to development? •How can we Increase participation of stakeholders from developing countries with a special focus on Increasing Youth and Women participation in IG from Least Developed Countries? •Can IG, access, development and rights be inextricably linked to the rule of law in developing countries? •How can convergence of Internet and Mobile Technology help in bridging the gap and what needs to be done in the next 12 months? •Where can IG decisions stimulate work on building community skills and capabilities to take advantage of ICTs in development? [Emerging issues for IG4D] •How can Open Data affect Development and what are the governance issues around Open Data? These might fit into the general emerging issues track, but a development-centred look at these issues could also be useful). •How can IG4D become pertinent to social inclusion and development in Africa? -Sub-theme:  *How to promote Internet education in Africa and develop and advocate for policies and initiatives that governments could adopt in this respect?  *IT literacy and Internet literacy programmes targeted at particular populations such as housewives, youth, military personnel, farmers and socially excluded sectors such as low-income families and the disabled. This would be a critical and necessary step in order to increase internet uptake in Africa, bridge the digital divide, and promote social inclusion as well. Broadband - Catalyst for Growth •How to help developing countries to establish broadband policies which have direct link to their sustainable social and economic development? Could we learn from some leading examples in light of recent global economic turmoil?  Suggested sub themes could be: - Policy Considerations; - From Rags to Riches [eg. of countries who have climbed out of poverty] - Stimulus - how to deal with the challenges --                         >> 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 iza at anr.org Tue Feb 28 17:45:38 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:45:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft Compilation for Access and Diversity Themes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is my compilation for Access and Diversity Themes Note: Filtering issues should be dealt in Security, Privacy and Openess and Theme and Human Rights related issues should be dealt in Human Right Theme and thus moved to their track suggestions. Thanks, izumi ------------------ Compilation for Access and Diversity Themes -- Following topics are suggested and discussed Internet for Kids (and Child Protection) or IMPACTS OF THE INTERNET ON YOUTH: CHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE and YOUNG ADULTS, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE INTERNET'        How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions?        How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities for youth to contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged?What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address issues for children, young people and young adults?        Clean Contents Development Awareness Compaign for the Kids Internet.         Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance, (that is beyond the Contents Filtering for Kids)        -Vote for the Provisioning of dot-Kids (gTLD with IDN translations)        -Campaign for Free Access to Kids Internet for Next Generation.        .Search engine for Kids        Browser + Firewall for Kids Internet.        Do children have no Right to Privacy?        From what age do children acquire the right to privacy?        How to ensure there is positive content available to children in engaging online and making positive choice?  [rather than adults choosing to control children's and young people's access to information with filtered online spaces] To create a universal definition for 'a child' is a major obstacle in harmonising policy and legislation.  Can we find something that can be reconfigured to provide a benefit for the 'new youth' as they come along? Internet for Elderly or Senior Citizens The Internet offers them benefits and problems as well. They are a very large but rather marginalised stakeholder group. “Participation of vulnerable people in the Information Society and their voice should be raised” was also suggested, but no further specifics were suggested 3)    MULTILINGUALISM 21. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local language. ●Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local language ●Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) ○       Panels that comprises of the IETF, ICANN and ITU to update the community on the work that is being done by these organisations on IDNs and explore some of the controversial elements of IDNs; ●Multilingualism in Global Policy Consultations should factor 4)  19. Internet for Women Or  WOMEN EMPOWERMENT  - also suggested but not further specifics were mentioned --------------- --                         >> 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 iza at anr.org Tue Feb 28 17:46:23 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:46:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft Compilation for Human Rights Themes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is my compilation for Human Right themes thread. I think there are still more themes that Civil Society want to push, but given tight deadline, and also some active players are right now engaged in the UN Human Right Commission, I would ask our MAG members to try to accommodate some more. Thanks, izumi IGF Themes Human Rights ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE; Internet as a tool of public participation (instead of “consultation”)  - a tool for connecting governments, governance and citizens. 'Children's Rights: Protection, Provision and Participation', (Instead of ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION) Balancing of rights - Intellectual Property Rights vs. Freedom of Expression vs. Privacy - Balancing the interests and human rights of producers and users of creative, digital goods of culture. - What are the most serious current imbalances and injustices? - Strategies for improving the situation Filtering - How do you balance filtering content and freedom of expression? - What should regulators consider when creating [filtering] policies? - When is filtering acceptable? [w/strong objection] * The spam problem - Problems caused by undesired automated communications - Undesired side-effects of spam filters - Strategies for improving the situation * Harmful and illegal content - What kind of content should be declared illegal? - What is done about this? - Undesired side-effects of some of these measures - Strategies for improving the situation --                         >> 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 iza at anr.org Tue Feb 28 17:47:14 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:47:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] Draft Compilation for Taking Stock and Way Forward themes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Taking Stock and Way Forward Dear list, the following themes were suggested for the Taking Stock and Way Forward session. thanks, izumi ----------- IGF Themes for Taking Stock and Way Forward "How are the rules for the Internet set". -  Awareness of the process often leads to identification of the responsible actors. How to coordinate and harmonize the current plurality of developing principles for Internet regulation? Following combination of A and B is suggested, 90 min session each: •INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES FRAMEWORK  or Internet Governance Regulatory Ecosystem and • B. BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: FACILITATING PARTICIPATION FOR ALL IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY AND KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY • PROMOTING HUMAN, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • CONTRIBUTING TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION • INFRASTRUCTURE, INVESTMENT ISSUES • SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES • [HOW TO HANDLE THE DIVERSITY OF NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK] --                         >> 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 tracey at traceynaughton.com Tue Feb 28 18:26:05 2012 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:26:05 +1100 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and the Internet [Final Call for Consensus] In-Reply-To: <4F4D57FE.3010700@communisphere.com> References: <4F4D57FE.3010700@communisphere.com> Message-ID: yes Tracey Tracey Naughton tracey at traceynaughton.com S 37. 04.260 E 144.12.910 22 Adams Street Castlemaine 3450 Australia land line: +613 54706853 mobile: +61 (0)413 019707 skype: tnaughton9999 On 29/02/2012, at 9:41 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: Yes, release the document. Tom Lowenhaupt On 2/28/2012 1:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > A Call for Volunteers to initiate a draft statement was made and Paul Lehto responded. The first draft was put to the IGC through email and the Statement Workspace for comments and contributions. We thank Paul and all those that contributed. > > The intention was to finalise our position to enable us to release a Statement by the 29th February, 2012 as the United Nations Human Rights Council is set to convene. > > Whilst we have missed the 13th February, 2012 deadline for Submissions, they can still factor in our Statement in the Panel Papers so it is important that we get this out post haste. I am mindful that at the time I write this email, it is Tuesday, 28 February 2012, 19:20:54 CET > > You can read the edited Statement on "Human Rights and the Internet" via the Statement Workspace which is http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/56 > > May we have your views whether you agree for this Statement to be released to the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday 29 February, 2012? > > Please vote:- > Yes > No > Unsure; > Other [Add comments] > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 18:48:45 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:48:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CEC48AA49261B9-18B8-6D8B@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com> Dear All -- Herewith a proposed rewrite, attempting to simplify and clarify. Each paragraph of the original draft is followed in italics by a proposed edited version. Best regards, Rony Koven Rightswithout borders – also known as human rights – have met their technologicaltwin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without borders. The Internet hastransformed the reality of human rights by creating a space wherecommunications can become universally participatory and truly flow in all directions, regardlessof frontiers, instead of the previous situation in which information flows were largelytop to bottom, flowing from content creators to content consumers. Theopen architecture of the Internet creates a new global commons that facilitates and enhances many pre-existinghuman rights, including but not limited to rights of free expression, rights ofinformation, petition, association and assembly, creative rights, and the rightto earn a livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internettechnology and design choices simultaneously extend human interaction inmultiple directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a moredemocratic basis than previously imaginable. [Previous graf unchanged,adding the word “global” before “commons.”] Thispowerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the Internetas a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the Internet toincorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by already beingpartially realized, causing (among other things) thought leaders regarding theInternet to sometimes be referred to as “evangelists.” Generally speaking,these rights-enhancing aspects have caused the Internet to reach the loftiestplanes of human hope, joining democracy and religion at the level of promising“a more abundant life” for all, without the prominent downsides oftenassociated with some actual implementations of government and religion. [Drop the previous graf. Religionshould be left out of this.] Themost powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet is notwhere these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in courts,but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internetarises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom ofexpression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the verynature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given that theInternet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can any singlebusiness, national government, or person obtain and enforce a right tointerfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack of claritythought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come from” simply palesin comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted right to interfere withthe freedom of others on the Internet. Any hypothetical “right tointerfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of expression is far moredifficult to justify and explain than upholding the natural human urge forself-expression and self-determination as a right. Thus, absent highlyexceptional circumstances, in a contest between interference and freeexpression, free expression always has the better case, regardless of whetherfree expression is thought of as an enforceable legal right or not. By its very nature, theInternet makes possible the facilitation of universal free expression. Giventhat the Internet is both ownerless and borderless, no single business,national government, or person has a right to interfere with the worldwidefreedom of the Internet. Any limit to the natural human right offreedom of expression has become far more difficult to justify and explain. Exceptin extraordinary circumstances that should be as narrowly defined as possible, restrictions to freedom of expression on and off line now seem even moreillegitimate than ever. Accessto the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered with orimpeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including businesses,governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators. Arguably,businesses are in the position to make more choices that actually orpotentially impair or impede human rights on the Internet than government. Some“governmental” interference with the Internet is driven by business concernlobbying, such that much “governmental” interference can be attributed tobusinesses. Regardless of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assessto each, it is extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and areacting in ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fullyunderstand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the publicinterest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair orimpede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim thatthey “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwiseinterferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a businessacting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, etc.) The Internet can beinterfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by many actors, includingbusinesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators.Commercial interests are often better able to impair or impede humanrights on the Internet than governments. Some ostensibly governmentalinterferences with the Internet are driven by business lobbying. In othercases, businesses may mask the reality that they are in fact imposinglimits for political reasons dictated by governments. Regardless of theirrelative responsibilities, both governments and businesses can and have actedin ways that interfere with the Internet, either out of failure to understand its nature and technology or in pursuit of narrow interests. Thosewho interfere with global or local Internet freedom should not be allowed toclaim that they act in its support. AlthoughInternet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of hostcountries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights laws likefreedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that domestic lawsrequire business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be met with theassertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single country. Although Internet companiesmust follow the laws of host countries, they are also obliged to respectuniversal human rights, notably freedom of expression. Claims that domesticlaws require businesses to cooperate with censorship or other restrictionsshould be countered by invoking the obligations of national governments tohonor the universal human rights texts that bind them. Inthe general context of market freedom, the development of new technologies willalways precede the question of the extent of their regulation. Yet, as humanactivity in the technology expands, some form of regulation is inevitable, justas it is impossible to imagine cities without any regulation, even though lackof regulation is possible in the countryside or wilderness. However, the paceof innovation and expansion on the Internet guarantees that no regulator cansufficiently keep pace. This requires deep commitment to human rights on thepart of engineers and others who are creating the Internet in real time. The pace of development ofcontemporary communications technology in a globalized free market seems bound to continue to outstrip the ability of regulators to keep up. Someregulation seems inevitable, given the complexity of modern societies. It will inevitably lag behind the pace of innovation and expansion of the Internet.This requires deep commitment to and understanding of human rights by the systemsdesigners who modify the Internet environment in real time. Thepre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of educationconcerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in thecontext of the Internet, because important structural and design decisionsregarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet engineersand administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is impossible fordetailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct effect, the “governance”of the Internet, in significant part, takes place in real time and in diverseplaces, often by engineers and programmers making design decisions, making adecentralized awareness and knowledge of human rights norms by people workingon the Internet especially critical to preventing serious human rights issuesfrom emerging. Knowledge about human rights, like the Internet itself, is aform of power that not only can be decentralized, but must be decentralized,given the diffuse points of potential impact on rights on the Internet, and thelack of any centralized ownership or control that can legitimately affect thewhole. The obligation of allgovernments to promote knowledge of human rights has taken on new urgency in the Internet era because basic structural and design decisions aboutcyberspace will continue to be made by Internet engineers and administrators ata speed that defies the possibilities of detailed policy guidance or adoptionof best practice norms. Understanding of human rights must therefore be generalized so asto avert their inadvertent compromise. Therefore,the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to be, a place forthe full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC condemns violationsof human rights on the Internet and wherever else they may occur, and the IGCcalls upon the United Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion ofeducation about human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators andusers of the Internet can maximize the value of the Internet as an enhancementof the human experience for all people, making ever more real the humanflourishing that is both the reality and the promise of the Internet, and doingso “without regard to frontiers.” The Internet GovernanceCaucus of the Internet Governance Forum therefore declares that the Internetis, and by right ought to be, a place for the full expression of human freedomsand equality. The IGC condemns violations of human rights both on the Internetand elsewhere. The IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to supportthe widest spread of human rights education so that those who continue todevelop and use the Internet may maximize its ability to enhance the humanexperience and to turn into reality the promise of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights to do so “through any media and regardless of frontiers.” -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: Adam Peake ; McTim ; Izumi AIZU Cc: Paul Lehto ; governance Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 8:00 pm Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] Dear All, >From this email, you will see that the Statement was put up for 48 hour period, see email below. Sala However, to factor in your concerns, I have made a final call for consensus. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM Subject: Re: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Shahzad Ahmad Cc: Robert Guerra Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous issues to a cohesive succint statement. The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments and contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap this up in time by at least the 29th February, 2012. Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a Statement by the 29th February, 2012. The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email: Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >> Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human rights:- privacy security freedom of expression intellectual property or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the Agenda: See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet. "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council for the first time. On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the years. We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put together a first draft for others to comment. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: Dear Robert, What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. Best wishes & regards Shahzad Sent from my iPhone On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Brett, > > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. > > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative > is still being discussed. > > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > >> Thanks Joy, >> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). >> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the broader constellation of human rights. >> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations can be found here: >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual Panel. >> >> Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Solomon >> Executive Director | Access >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >> >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> Project Coordinator >> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >> >> www.apc.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Feb 28 18:58:34 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:58:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: <8CEC48AA49261B9-18B8-6D8B@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CEC48AA49261B9-18B8-6D8B@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8A6FC797-9800-482B-A42B-79AD4667AA0B@privaterra.org> Rony, Nice rewrite :) Sala, If there's consensus on the revised language, suggest the text be posted in the IGC website. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-28, at 6:48 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > Dear All -- > > Herewith a proposed rewrite, attempting to simplify and clarify. > > Each paragraph of the original draft is followed in italics by a proposed edited version. > > Best regards, Rony Koven > > Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without borders. > > The Internet has transformed the reality of human rights by creating a space where communications can become universally participatory and truly flow in all directions, regardless of frontiers, instead of the previous situation in which information flows were largely top to bottom, flowing from content creators to content consumers. > > The open architecture of the Internet creates a new global commons that facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology and design choices simultaneously extend human interaction in multiple directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously imaginable. > > [Previous graf unchanged, adding the word “global” before “commons.”] > > This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for all, without the prominent downsides often associated with some actual implementations of government and religion. > > [Drop the previous graf. Religion should be left out of this.] > > The most powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet is not where these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom of expression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given that the Internet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can any single business, national government, or person obtain and enforce a right to interfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack of clarity thought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come from” simply pales in comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted right to interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet. Any hypothetical “right to interfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of expression is far more difficult to justify and explain than upholding the natural human urge for self-expression and self-determination as a right. Thus, absent highly exceptional circumstances, in a contest between interference and free expression, free expression always has the better case, regardless of whether free expression is thought of as an enforceable legal right or not. > > By its very nature, the Internet makes possible the facilitation of universal free expression. Given that the Internet is both ownerless and borderless, no single business, national government, or person has a right to interfere with the worldwide freedom of the Internet. Any limit to the natural human right of freedom of expression has become far more difficult to justify and explain. Except in extraordinary circumstances that should be as narrowly defined as possible, restrictions to freedom of expression on and off line now seem even more illegitimate than ever. > > Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting in ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, etc.) > > The Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by many actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators. Commercial interests are often better able to impair or impede human rights on the Internet than governments. Some ostensibly governmental interferences with the Internet are driven by business lobbying. In other cases, businesses may mask the reality that they are in fact imposing limits for political reasons dictated by governments. Regardless of their relative responsibilities, both governments and businesses can and have acted in ways that interfere with the Internet, either out of failure to understand its nature and technology or in pursuit of narrow interests. Those who interfere with global or local Internet freedom should not be allowed to claim that they act in its support. > > Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single country. > > Although Internet companies must follow the laws of host countries, they are also obliged to respect universal human rights, notably freedom of expression. Claims that domestic laws require businesses to cooperate with censorship or other restrictions should be countered by invoking the obligations of national governments to honor the universal human rights texts that bind them. > > In the general context of market freedom, the development of new technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and others who are creating the Internet in real time. > > The pace of development of contemporary communications technology in a globalized free market seems bound to continue to outstrip the ability of regulators to keep up. Some regulation seems inevitable, given the complexity of modern societies. It will inevitably lag behind the pace of innovation and expansion of the Internet. This requires deep commitment to and understanding of human rights by the systems designers who modify the Internet environment in real time. > > The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. > > The obligation of all governments to promote knowledge of human rights has taken on new urgency in the Internet era because basic structural and design decisions about cyberspace will continue to be made by Internet engineers and administrators at a speed that defies the possibilities of detailed policy guidance or adoption of best practice norms. Understanding of human rights must therefore be generalized so as to avert their inadvertent compromise. > > Therefore, the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever else they may occur, and the IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can maximize the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human experience for all people, making ever more real the human flourishing that is both the reality and the promise of the Internet, and doing so “without regard to frontiers.” > > The Internet Governance Caucus of the Internet Governance Forum therefore declares that the Internet is, and by right ought to be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality. The IGC condemns violations of human rights both on the Internet and elsewhere. The IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to support the widest spread of human rights education so that those who continue to develop and use the Internet may maximize its ability to enhance the human experience and to turn into reality the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to do so “through any media and regardless of frontiers.” > > -----Original Message----- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: Adam Peake ; McTim ; Izumi AIZU > Cc: Paul Lehto ; governance > Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 8:00 pm > Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] > > Dear All, > > From this email, you will see that the Statement was put up for 48 hour period, see email below. > > Sala > > However, to factor in your concerns, I have made a final call for consensus. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Shahzad Ahmad > Cc: Robert Guerra > > > Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous issues to a cohesive succint statement. > > The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments and contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap this up in time by at least the 29th February, 2012. > > Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a Statement by the 29th February, 2012. > > The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx > > Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email: > Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. > >> > >> > >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. > >> > >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. > >> > > Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? > > Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human rights:- > privacy > security > freedom of expression > intellectual property > or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the Agenda: > > > See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true > > > Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet > > On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet. > "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs. > Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. > This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council for the first time. > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the years. > > We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put together a first draft for others to comment. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: > Dear Robert, > > What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. > > Best wishes & regards > Shahzad > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > > Brett, > > > > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. > > > > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative > > is still being discussed. > > > > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. > > > > regards > > > > Robert > > > > > > -- > > R. Guerra > > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > > > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > > > >> Thanks Joy, > >> > >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). > >> > >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the broader constellation of human rights. > >> > >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations can be found here: > >> > >> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights > >> > >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual Panel. > >> > >> Brett > >> > >> -- > >> Brett Solomon > >> Executive Director | Access > >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org > >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, > >> > >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). > >> > >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. > >> > >> > >> > >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. > >> > >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. > >> > >> > >> > >> Kind regards > >> > >> > >> > >> Joy Liddicoat > >> > >> Project Coordinator > >> > >> Internet Rights are Human Rights > >> > >> www.apc.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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 19:03:08 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:03:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: <8A6FC797-9800-482B-A42B-79AD4667AA0B@privaterra.org> References: <8CEC48AA49261B9-18B8-6D8B@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com> <8A6FC797-9800-482B-A42B-79AD4667AA0B@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Thank you for your comments. I would invite you Rony to insert your suggested revisions on the Statement Workspace to allow others to comment specifically. People can respond to your suggested revisions. Please comment via: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/56 The Workspace is tailored to enable others to comment specifically on paragraphs, otherwise it is hard work to glean from mailing lists and piece it together. On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Rony, > > Nice rewrite :) > > Sala, > > If there's consensus on the revised language, suggest the text be posted > in the IGC website. > > Robert > -- > > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-28, at 6:48 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > > Dear All -- > > Herewith a proposed rewrite, attempting to simplify and clarify. > > Each paragraph of the original draft is followed in italics by a > proposed edited version. > > Best regards, Rony Koven > > Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their > technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without > borders.**** > ** ** > *The Internet has transformed the reality of human rights by creating a > space where communications can become universally participatory and truly > flow in all directions, regardless of frontiers, instead of the previous > situation in which information flows were largely top to bottom, flowing > from content creators to content consumers. * > ** ** > The open architecture of the Internet creates a new *global *commons that > facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not > limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, > association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a > livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology > and design choices simultaneously extend human interaction in multiple > directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more > democratic basis than previously imaginable.**** > ** ** > *[Previous graf unchanged, adding the word “global” before “commons.”]* > ** ** > This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the > Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the > Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by > already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought > leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as > “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have > caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining > democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for > all, without the prominent downsides often associated with some actual > implementations of government and religion.**** > ** ** > *[Drop the previous graf. Religion should be left out of this.]* > ** ** > The most powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet > is not where these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in > courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the > Internet arises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom of > expression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the > very nature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given > that the Internet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can > any single business, national government, or person obtain and enforce a > right to interfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack > of clarity thought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come > from” simply pales in comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted > right to interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet. Any > hypothetical “right to interfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of > expression is far more difficult to justify and explain than upholding the > natural human urge for self-expression and self-determination as a right. > Thus, absent highly exceptional circumstances, in a contest between > interference and free expression, free expression always has the better > case, regardless of whether free expression is thought of as an enforceable > legal right or not.**** > ** ** > *By its very nature, the Internet makes possible the facilitation of > universal free expression. Given that the Internet is both ownerless and > borderless, no single business, national government, or person has a right > to interfere with the worldwide freedom of the Internet. Any limit to the > natural human right of freedom of expression has become far more difficult > to justify and explain. Except in extraordinary circumstances that should > be as narrowly defined as possible, restrictions to freedom of expression > on and off line now seem even more illegitimate than ever.* > ** ** > Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered > with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including > businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, > administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more > choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the > Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the > Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much > “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of > the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is > extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting in > ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully > understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public > interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair or > impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim that > they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwise > interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a business > acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, > etc.)**** > ** ** > *The Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by > many actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web > designers, administrators. Commercial interests are often better able to > impair or impede human rights on the Internet than governments. Some > ostensibly governmental interferences with the Internet are driven by > business lobbying. In other cases, businesses may mask the reality that > they are in fact imposing limits for political reasons dictated by > governments. Regardless of their relative responsibilities, both > governments and businesses can and have acted in ways that interfere with > the Internet, either out of failure to understand its nature and > technology or in pursuit of narrow interests. Those who interfere with > global or local Internet freedom should not be allowed to claim that they > act in its support.* > ** ** > Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules > of host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights > laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that > domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be > met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single > country.**** > ** ** > *Although Internet companies must follow the laws of host countries, they > are also obliged to respect universal human rights, notably freedom of > expression. Claims that domestic laws require businesses to cooperate with > censorship or other restrictions should be countered by invoking the > obligations of national governments to honor the universal human rights > texts that bind them.* > ** ** > In the general context of market freedom, the development of new > technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their > regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of > regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities > without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the > countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on > the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This > requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and > others who are creating the Internet in real time.**** > ** ** > *The pace of development of contemporary communications technology in a > globalized free market seems bound to continue to outstrip the ability of > regulators to keep up. Some regulation seems inevitable, given the > complexity of modern societies. It will inevitably lag behind the pace of > innovation and expansion of the Internet. This requires deep commitment to > and understanding of human rights by the systems designers who modify the > Internet environment in real time.* > ** ** > The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education > concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the > context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions > regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet > engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is > impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct > effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place > in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers > making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of > human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to > preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human > rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be > decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of > potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized > ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole.**** > ** ** > *The obligation of all governments to promote knowledge of human rights > has taken on new urgency in the Internet era because basic structural and > design decisions about cyberspace will continue to be made by Internet > engineers and administrators at a speed that defies the possibilities of > detailed policy guidance or adoption of best practice norms. Understanding > of human rights must therefore be generalized so as to avert their > inadvertent compromise.* > ** ** > Therefore, the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to > be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC > condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever else they > may occur, and the IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to > support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that > developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can > maximize the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human > experience for all people, making ever more real the human flourishing that > is both the reality and the promise of the Internet, and doing so “without > regard to frontiers.” **** > ** ** > *The Internet Governance Caucus of the Internet Governance Forum > therefore declares that the Internet is, and by right ought to be, a place > for the full expression of human freedoms and equality. The IGC condemns > violations of human rights both on the Internet and elsewhere. The IGC > calls upon the United Nations and all people to support the widest spread > of human rights education so that those who continue to develop and use the > Internet may maximize its ability to enhance the human experience and to > turn into reality the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights > to do so “through any media and regardless of frontiers.”* > * * > -----Original Message----- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: Adam Peake ; McTim ; Izumi > AIZU > Cc: Paul Lehto ; governance < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 8:00 pm > Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement > from IGC???] > > Dear All, > > From this email, you will see that the Statement was put up for 48 hour > period, see email below. > > Sala > > However, to factor in your concerns, I have made a final call for > consensus. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Shahzad Ahmad > Cc: Robert Guerra > > > Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no > easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous > issues to a cohesive succint statement. > > The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments > and contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap > this up in time by at least the 29th February, 2012. > > Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a >> statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we >> can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 >> hours through the statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would >> like to send a Statement by the 29th February, 2012. >> >> The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place >> between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: >> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx >> >> *Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email:* >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >> the panel event. >> >> >> >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >> Rue. >> >> >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >> possible. >> >> >> >> Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human >> Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting >> in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? >> >> Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human >> rights:- >> >> - privacy >> - security >> - freedom of expression >> - intellectual property >> >> or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the >>> Agenda: >>> >>> >>> See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true >>> >>> >>> Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet >>> On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision >>> to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at >>> its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative >>> of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. >>> This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom >>> of expression on the Internet. >>> "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human >>> rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister >>> for Foreign Affairs. >>> Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and >>> protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, >>> presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN >>> Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl >>> Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in >>> La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of >>> influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. >>> This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude >>> today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and >>> representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and >>> civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of >>> expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human >>> Rights Council for the first time. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and >>>> use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that >>>> there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the >>>> years. >>>> >>>> We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put >>>> together a first draft for others to comment. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Robert, >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? >>>>> Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes & regards >>>>> Shahzad >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Brett, >>>>> > >>>>> > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance >>>>> Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, >>>>> that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva >>>>> this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the >>>>> proposal and it was not accepted. >>>>> > >>>>> > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the >>>>> meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes >>>>> at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >>>>> > is still being discussed. >>>>> > >>>>> > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated >>>>> effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >>>>> > >>>>> > regards >>>>> > >>>>> > Robert >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > R. Guerra >>>>> > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>> > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>>> > >>>>> > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Thanks Joy, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the >>>>> High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb >>>>> 29). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the >>>>> realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil >>>>> society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with >>>>> confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the >>>>> broader constellation of human rights. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and >>>>> recommendations can be found here: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>>>> >> >>>>> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the >>>>> actual Panel. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Brett >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> Brett Solomon >>>>> >> Executive Director | Access >>>>> >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>>>> >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>>>> >> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights >>>>> Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >>>>> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >>>>> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >>>>> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >>>>> the panel event. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >>>>> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >>>>> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >>>>> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >>>>> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >>>>> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >>>>> Rue. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around >>>>> the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >>>>> possible. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Kind regards >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Joy Liddicoat >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Project Coordinator >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>>>> >> >>>>> >> www.apc.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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 19:30:29 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:30:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] Consolidated Themes MAG Consultations [DRAFT] Message-ID: Dear All, Warm Greetings! We warmly thank you all for your generous contributions to the MAG Consultation Process in relation to the development of themes. As we wait for the final consolidation of the comments from the threads on Managing Critical Internet Resources Working Group and Security, Openness and Privacy Working Groups, have a read of what it looks like at this stage. Once we finalise (III) and (IV) Working Groups. I thank Izumi for his work in consolidating the material, we are now bringing them altogether in one single thread. We have passed the deadline that Fouad gave which was the 27th February, 2012 but it closes on 1st March, 2012. If you have any final comments whilst we are waiting for the consolidation of the remaining Thematic Categories. *Facilitators of Online Discussions* 1. Fouad Bajwa – Facilitator for IG4D working Group; 2. Bill Graham – Facilitator of Emerging Issues Working Group; 3. Jennifer Warren – Facilitator of Managing Critical Internet Resources Working Group; 4. Theresa Swinehart – Facilitator of Security, Openness and Privacy Working Group; 5. Ayesha Hassan- Facilitator of Access and Diversity ; 6. Romulo Neves – Facilitator of Taking Stock and The Way Forward; INTERNET GOVERNANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT (IG4D) * I. *What are specific global Internet governance issues that have particular relevance to development?** *II. *How can we Increase participation of stakeholders from developing countries with a special focus on Increasing Youth and Women participation in IG from Least Developed Countries?** *III. *Can IG, access, development and rights be inextricably linked to the rule of law in developing countries?** *IV. *How can convergence of Internet and Mobile Technology help in bridging the gap and what needs to be done in the next 12 months?** V. Where can IG decisions stimulate work on building community skills and capabilities to take advantage of ICTs in development? [Emerging issues for IG4D] *VI. *How can Open Data affect Development and what are the governance issues around Open Data[S1] ?** *VII. *How can IG4D become pertinent to social inclusion and development in Africa?** *a. *How to promote Internet education in Africa and develop and advocate for policies and initiatives that governments could adopt in this respect?** *b. *IT literacy and Internet literacy programmes targeted at particular populations such as housewives, youth, military personnel, farmers and socially excluded sectors such as low-income families and the disabled. This would be a critical and necessary step in order to increase internet uptake in Africa, bridge the digital divide, and promote social inclusion as well.** *VIII. *Broadband - Catalyst for Growth** *a. *How to help developing countries to establish broadband policies which have direct link to their sustainable social and economic development?** *b. *Could we learn from some leading examples in light of recent global economic turmoil?** *c. *Policy Considerations;** *d. *From Rags to Riches [eg. of countries who have climbed out of poverty]** *e. *Stimulus - how to deal with the challenges ** * * * * * * * * ACCESS AND DIVERSITY Participation of the Vulnerable Explanatory Note: The advocacy of the “vulnerable” is critical, particularly in ensuring that no one is marginalized. I. Participation of vulnerable people in the Information Society and their voice should be raised” II. Internet for Kids (and Child Protection) III. Iimpacts of the Internet on Youth: Children, Young people and Young Ddults, and their impact on the internet' a. How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? b. How are 'youth' affected by Internet Governance decisions? c. How are 'youth' shaping the Internet? How can opportunities forl youth to contribute positively to the development of the Internet be encouraged? d. What are the differences in how Internet Governance should address issues for children, young people and young adults? e. Clean Contents Development Awareness Campaign for the Kids Internet; f. Debates for Provisioning of Kids Internet Governance, (that is beyond the Contents Filtering for Kids) g. Vote for the Provisioning of dot-Kids (gTLD with IDN translations) h. Campaign for Free Access to Kids Internet for Next Generation. i. Search engine for Kids j. Browser + Firewall for Kids Internet k. Do children have no Right to Privacy? l. From what age do children acquire the right to privacy? m. How to ensure there is positive content available to children in engaging online and making positive choice? [rather than adults choosing to control children's and young people's access to information with filtered online spaces] n. To create a universal definition for 'a child' is a major obstacle in harmonising policy and legislation. Can we find something that can be reconfigured to provide a benefit for the 'new youth' as they come along? IV. Internet for Elderly or Senior Citizens V. Internet for Women a. Empowering women through the Internet b. How the Internet has transformed economies through the empowerment of women and children Multilingualism VI. Multilingualism VII. Public Awareness for Contents Development/ Conversion into Local language VIII. Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) a. Uniform Acceptance of IDNs b. Conventions; c. Controversies; d. Global Policy Consultations (ISO, IETF, ICANN and ITU-T to update) * * HUMAN RIGHTS I. Access to Knowledge: The Internet as a Medium for Public Participation[S2] ; a. a tool for connecting governments, governance and citizens; II. Children's Rights: Protection, Provision and Participation [S3] III. Balancing of Rights a. Key Considerations and Strategies for Improvement b. Intellectual Property Rights vs. Freedom of Expression vs. Privacy c. Balancing the interests and human rights of producers and users of creative, digital goods of culture; d. Challenges in Cross Border Application of Rights e. What are the most serious current imbalances and injustices? IV. Filtering a. How do you balance filtering content and freedom of expression? b. When is filtering acceptable? [w/strong objection] c. Exploring Objectionable Content i. Harmful and illegal content; ii. What kind of content should be declared illegal? iii. Undesired side-effects of some of these measures iv. What is done about this? v. Strategies for improving the situation d. Hiding Behind the Veil of Objectionable Content e. Filtering Mechanisms Transparency and Accountability V. The spam problem a. Problems caused by undesired automated communications b. Undesired side-effects of spam filters c. Strategies for improving the situation TAKING STOCK: THE WAY FORWARD I. Internet Universe a. Mapping Internet Governance Forums b. Regulatory Environment within the Internet Ecosystem; II. How are the rules for the Internet set? III. Coordinating and harmonizing the current plurality of developing principles for Internet Regulation; IV. Internet Governance Principles V. Bridging The Digital Divide: Facilitating Participation For All In The Information Society And Knowledge Economy VI. Promoting Human, Social And Economic Development VII. Contributing To Poverty Alleviation VIII. Infrastructure, Investment Issues IX. Satellite Technology And Services X. National Regulatory Models a. Strengths: An Opportunity to Leapfrog b. Challenges c. Handling the Diversity ------------------------------ [S1]These might fit into the general emerging issues track, but a development-centred look at these issues could also be useful [S2]Democratization of the Internet [S3]Instead of Online Child Protection -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 19:30:33 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:30:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: References: <8CEC48AA49261B9-18B8-6D8B@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com><8A6FC797-9800-482B-A42B-79AD4667AA0B@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <8CEC4907B4D473C-18B8-7248@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com> Dear Sala -- I went to the link but didn't see how to post the new draft. Apparently, I need a password. To speed things up, could you please post the draft, below, for me ? Thank you. Bests, Rony Dear All -- Herewith a proposed rewrite, attempting to simplify and clarify. Each paragraph of the original draft is followed in italics by a proposed edited version. Best regards, Rony Koven Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without borders. The Internet has transformed the reality of human rights by creating a space where communications can become universally participatory and truly flow in all directions, regardless of frontiers, instead of the previous situation in which information flows were largely top to bottom, flowing from content creators to content consumers. The open architecture of the Internet creates a new global commons that facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology and design choices simultaneously extend human interaction in multiple directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more democratic basis than previously imaginable. [Previous graf unchanged, adding the word “global” before “commons.”] This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for all, without the prominent downsides often associated with some actual implementations of government and religion. [Drop the previous graf. Religion should be left out of this.] The most powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet is not where these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internet arises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom of expression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the very nature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given that the Internet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can any single business, national government, or person obtain and enforce a right to interfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack of clarity thought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come from” simply pales in comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted right to interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet. Any hypothetical “right to interfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of expression is far more difficult to justify and explain than upholding the natural human urge for self-expression and self-determination as a right. Thus, absent highly exceptional circumstances, in a contest between interference and free expression, free expression always has the better case, regardless of whether free expression is thought of as an enforceable legal right or not. By its very nature, the Internet makes possible the facilitation of universal free expression. Given that the Internet is both ownerless and borderless, no single business, national government, or person has a right to interfere with the worldwide freedom of the Internet. Any limit to the natural human right of freedom of expression has become far more difficult to justify and explain. Except in extraordinary circumstances that should be as narrowly defined as possible, restrictions to freedom of expression on and off line now seem even more illegitimate than ever. Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting in ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair or impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim that they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwise interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a business acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, etc.) The Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by many actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators. Commercial interests are often better able to impair or impede human rights on the Internet than governments. Some ostensibly governmental interferences with the Internet are driven by business lobbying. In other cases, businesses may mask the reality that they are in fact imposing limits for political reasons dictated by governments. Regardless of their relative responsibilities, both governments and businesses can and have acted in ways that interfere with the Internet, either out of failure to understand its nature and technology or in pursuit of narrow interests. Those who interfere with global or local Internet freedom should not be allowed to claim that they act in its support. Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single country. Although Internet companies must follow the laws of host countries, they are also obliged to respect universal human rights, notably freedom of expression. Claims that domestic laws require businesses to cooperate with censorship or other restrictions should be countered by invoking the obligations of national governments to honor the universal human rights texts that bind them. In the general context of market freedom, the development of new technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and others who are creating the Internet in real time. The pace of development of contemporary communications technology in a globalized free market seems bound to continue to outstrip the ability of regulators to keep up. Some regulation seems inevitable, given the complexity of modern societies. It will inevitably lag behind the pace of innovation and expansion of the Internet. This requires deep commitment to and understanding of human rights by the systems designers who modify the Internet environment in real time. The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. The obligation of all governments to promote knowledge of human rights has taken on new urgency in the Internet era because basic structural and design decisions about cyberspace will continue to be made by Internet engineers and administrators at a speed that defies the possibilities of detailed policy guidance or adoption of best practice norms. Understanding of human rights must therefore be generalized so as to avert their inadvertent compromise. Therefore, the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever else they may occur, and the IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can maximize the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human experience for all people, making ever more real the human flourishing that is both the reality and the promise of the Internet, and doing so “without regard to frontiers.” The Internet Governance Caucus of the Internet Governance Forum therefore declares that the Internet is, and by right ought to be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality. The IGC condemns violations of human rights both on the Internet and elsewhere. The IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to support the widest spread of human rights education so that those who continue to develop and use the Internet may maximize its ability to enhance the human experience and to turn into reality the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to do so “through any media and regardless of frontiers.” -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: governance ; Robert Guerra Sent: Wed, Feb 29, 2012 1:04 am Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] Thank you for your comments. I would invite you Rony to insert your suggested revisions on the Statement Workspace to allow others to comment specifically. People can respond to your suggested revisions. Please comment via: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/56 The Workspace is tailored to enable others to comment specifically on paragraphs, otherwise it is hard work to glean from mailing lists and piece it together. On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: Rony, Nice rewrite :) Sala, If there's consensus on the revised language, suggest the text be posted in the IGC website. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-02-28, at 6:48 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: Dear All -- Herewith a proposed rewrite, attempting to simplify and clarify. Each paragraph of the original draft is followed in italics by a proposed edited version. Best regards, Rony Koven Rightswithout borders – also known as human rights – have met their technologicaltwin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without borders. The Internet hastransformed the reality of human rights by creating a space wherecommunications can become universally participatory and truly flow in all directions, regardlessof frontiers, instead of the previous situation in which information flows were largelytop to bottom, flowing from content creators to content consumers. Theopen architecture of the Internet creates a new global commons that facilitates and enhances many pre-existinghuman rights, including but not limited to rights of free expression, rights ofinformation, petition, association and assembly, creative rights, and the rightto earn a livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internettechnology and design choices simultaneously extend human interaction inmultiple directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a moredemocratic basis than previously imaginable. [Previous graf unchanged,adding the word “global” before “commons.”] Thispowerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the Internetas a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the Internet toincorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by already beingpartially realized, causing (among other things) thought leaders regarding theInternet to sometimes be referred to as “evangelists.” Generally speaking,these rights-enhancing aspects have caused the Internet to reach the loftiestplanes of human hope, joining democracy and religion at the level of promising“a more abundant life” for all, without the prominent downsides oftenassociated with some actual implementations of government and religion. [Drop the previous graf. Religionshould be left out of this.] Themost powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet is notwhere these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in courts,but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the Internetarises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom ofexpression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the verynature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given that theInternet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can any singlebusiness, national government, or person obtain and enforce a right tointerfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack of claritythought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come from” simply palesin comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted right to interfere withthe freedom of others on the Internet. Any hypothetical “right tointerfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of expression is far moredifficult to justify and explain than upholding the natural human urge forself-expression and self-determination as a right. Thus, absent highlyexceptional circumstances, in a contest between interference and freeexpression, free expression always has the better case, regardless of whetherfree expression is thought of as an enforceable legal right or not. By its very nature, theInternet makes possible the facilitation of universal free expression. Giventhat the Internet is both ownerless and borderless, no single business,national government, or person has a right to interfere with the worldwidefreedom of the Internet. Any limit to the natural human right offreedom of expression has become far more difficult to justify and explain. Exceptin extraordinary circumstances that should be as narrowly defined as possible, restrictions to freedom of expression on and off line now seem even moreillegitimate than ever. Accessto the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered with orimpeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including businesses,governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators. Arguably,businesses are in the position to make more choices that actually orpotentially impair or impede human rights on the Internet than government. Some“governmental” interference with the Internet is driven by business concernlobbying, such that much “governmental” interference can be attributed tobusinesses. Regardless of the relative amounts of responsibility one may assessto each, it is extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and areacting in ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fullyunderstand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the publicinterest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair orimpede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim thatthey “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwiseinterferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a businessacting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, etc.) The Internet can beinterfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by many actors, includingbusinesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, administrators.Commercial interests are often better able to impair or impede humanrights on the Internet than governments. Some ostensibly governmentalinterferences with the Internet are driven by business lobbying. In othercases, businesses may mask the reality that they are in fact imposinglimits for political reasons dictated by governments. Regardless of theirrelative responsibilities, both governments and businesses can and have actedin ways that interfere with the Internet, either out of failure to understand its nature and technology or in pursuit of narrow interests. Thosewho interfere with global or local Internet freedom should not be allowed toclaim that they act in its support. AlthoughInternet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of hostcountries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights laws likefreedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that domestic lawsrequire business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be met with theassertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single country. Although Internet companiesmust follow the laws of host countries, they are also obliged to respectuniversal human rights, notably freedom of expression. Claims that domesticlaws require businesses to cooperate with censorship or other restrictionsshould be countered by invoking the obligations of national governments tohonor the universal human rights texts that bind them. Inthe general context of market freedom, the development of new technologies willalways precede the question of the extent of their regulation. Yet, as humanactivity in the technology expands, some form of regulation is inevitable, justas it is impossible to imagine cities without any regulation, even though lackof regulation is possible in the countryside or wilderness. However, the paceof innovation and expansion on the Internet guarantees that no regulator cansufficiently keep pace. This requires deep commitment to human rights on thepart of engineers and others who are creating the Internet in real time. The pace of development ofcontemporary communications technology in a globalized free market seems bound to continue to outstrip the ability of regulators to keep up. Someregulation seems inevitable, given the complexity of modern societies. It will inevitably lag behind the pace of innovation and expansion of the Internet.This requires deep commitment to and understanding of human rights by the systemsdesigners who modify the Internet environment in real time. Thepre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of educationconcerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in thecontext of the Internet, because important structural and design decisionsregarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet engineersand administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is impossible fordetailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct effect, the “governance”of the Internet, in significant part, takes place in real time and in diverseplaces, often by engineers and programmers making design decisions, making adecentralized awareness and knowledge of human rights norms by people workingon the Internet especially critical to preventing serious human rights issuesfrom emerging. Knowledge about human rights, like the Internet itself, is aform of power that not only can be decentralized, but must be decentralized,given the diffuse points of potential impact on rights on the Internet, and thelack of any centralized ownership or control that can legitimately affect thewhole. The obligation of allgovernments to promote knowledge of human rights has taken on new urgency in the Internet era because basic structural and design decisions aboutcyberspace will continue to be made by Internet engineers and administrators ata speed that defies the possibilities of detailed policy guidance or adoptionof best practice norms. Understanding of human rights must therefore be generalized so asto avert their inadvertent compromise. Therefore,the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to be, a place forthe full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC condemns violationsof human rights on the Internet and wherever else they may occur, and the IGCcalls upon the United Nations and all people to support the utmost diffusion ofeducation about human rights so that developers, engineers, administrators andusers of the Internet can maximize the value of the Internet as an enhancementof the human experience for all people, making ever more real the humanflourishing that is both the reality and the promise of the Internet, and doingso “without regard to frontiers.” The Internet GovernanceCaucus of the Internet Governance Forum therefore declares that the Internetis, and by right ought to be, a place for the full expression of human freedomsand equality. The IGC condemns violations of human rights both on the Internetand elsewhere. The IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to supportthe widest spread of human rights education so that those who continue todevelop and use the Internet may maximize its ability to enhance the humanexperience and to turn into reality the promise of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights to do so “through any media and regardless of frontiers.” -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: Adam Peake ; McTim ; Izumi AIZU Cc: Paul Lehto ; governance Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 8:00 pm Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] Dear All, >From this email, you will see that the Statement was put up for 48 hour period, see email below. Sala However, to factor in your concerns, I have made a final call for consensus. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM Subject: Re: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Shahzad Ahmad Cc: Robert Guerra Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous issues to a cohesive succint statement. The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments and contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap this up in time by at least the 29th February, 2012. Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a Statement by the 29th February, 2012. The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email: Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >> Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human rights:- privacy security freedom of expression intellectual property or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the Agenda: See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet. "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human Rights Council for the first time. On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the years. We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put together a first draft for others to comment. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: Dear Robert, What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. Best wishes & regards Shahzad Sent from my iPhone On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Brett, > > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it was not accepted. > > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes at the 2012 IGF. That alternative > is still being discussed. > > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: > >> Thanks Joy, >> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb 29). >> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the broader constellation of human rights. >> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and recommendations can be found here: >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the actual Panel. >> >> Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Solomon >> Executive Director | Access >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel event. >> >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if possible. >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> Project Coordinator >> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >> >> www.apc.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 19:50:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:50:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: <8CEC48AA49261B9-18B8-6D8B@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CEC48AA49261B9-18B8-6D8B@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Dear Rony, I have done the first comment for you on your behalf to show you how it's done but please do the rest. See: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/56#2 You can't post the entire statement but you can certainly post your suggested revisions per paragraph, by typing in your name and email. No password needed to comment. If you run into any problems, please email Jeremy Malcolm for technical solutions etc. All the best. Warm Regards, Sala On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Koven Ronald wrote: > Dear All -- > > Herewith a proposed rewrite, attempting to simplify and clarify. > > Each paragraph of the original draft is followed in italics by a > proposed edited version. > > Best regards, Rony Koven > > Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their > technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without > borders.**** > ** ** > *The Internet has transformed the reality of human rights by creating a > space where communications can become universally participatory and truly > flow in all directions, regardless of frontiers, instead of the previous > situation in which information flows were largely top to bottom, flowing > from content creators to content consumers. * > ** ** > The open architecture of the Internet creates a new *global *commons that > facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not > limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, > association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a > livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology > and design choices simultaneously extend human interaction in multiple > directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more > democratic basis than previously imaginable.**** > ** ** > *[Previous graf unchanged, adding the word “global” before “commons.”]* > ** ** > This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the > Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the > Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by > already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought > leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as > “evangelists.” Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have > caused the Internet to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining > democracy and religion at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for > all, without the prominent downsides often associated with some actual > implementations of government and religion.**** > ** ** > *[Drop the previous graf. Religion should be left out of this.]* > ** ** > The most powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet > is not where these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in > courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the > Internet arises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom of > expression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the > very nature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given > that the Internet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can > any single business, national government, or person obtain and enforce a > right to interfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack > of clarity thought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come > from” simply pales in comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted > right to interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet. Any > hypothetical “right to interfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of > expression is far more difficult to justify and explain than upholding the > natural human urge for self-expression and self-determination as a right. > Thus, absent highly exceptional circumstances, in a contest between > interference and free expression, free expression always has the better > case, regardless of whether free expression is thought of as an enforceable > legal right or not.**** > ** ** > *By its very nature, the Internet makes possible the facilitation of > universal free expression. Given that the Internet is both ownerless and > borderless, no single business, national government, or person has a right > to interfere with the worldwide freedom of the Internet. Any limit to the > natural human right of freedom of expression has become far more difficult > to justify and explain. Except in extraordinary circumstances that should > be as narrowly defined as possible, restrictions to freedom of expression > on and off line now seem even more illegitimate than ever.* > ** ** > Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered > with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including > businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, > administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more > choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the > Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the > Internet is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much > “governmental” interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of > the relative amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is > extremely clear that both governments and businesses can and are acting in > ways that interfere with the Internet, either by failing to fully > understand the Internet, or by pursuing narrow interests over the public > interest as a whole. Any such government or business that acts to impair or > impede the global freedom of the Internet should not be heard to claim that > they “have the Internet” (in the case of a nation that filters or otherwise > interferes) or that they “support the Internet” (in the case of a business > acting in fact to impede access to the full Internet, or censor content, > etc.)**** > ** ** > *The Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by > many actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web > designers, administrators. Commercial interests are often better able to > impair or impede human rights on the Internet than governments. Some > ostensibly governmental interferences with the Internet are driven by > business lobbying. In other cases, businesses may mask the reality that > they are in fact imposing limits for political reasons dictated by > governments. Regardless of their relative responsibilities, both > governments and businesses can and have acted in ways that interfere with > the Internet, either out of failure to understand its nature and > technology or in pursuit of narrow interests. Those who interfere with > global or local Internet freedom should not be allowed to claim that they > act in its support.* > ** ** > Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules > of host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights > laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that > domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be > met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single > country.**** > ** ** > *Although Internet companies must follow the laws of host countries, they > are also obliged to respect universal human rights, notably freedom of > expression. Claims that domestic laws require businesses to cooperate with > censorship or other restrictions should be countered by invoking the > obligations of national governments to honor the universal human rights > texts that bind them.* > ** ** > In the general context of market freedom, the development of new > technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their > regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of > regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities > without any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the > countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on > the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This > requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and > others who are creating the Internet in real time.**** > ** ** > *The pace of development of contemporary communications technology in a > globalized free market seems bound to continue to outstrip the ability of > regulators to keep up. Some regulation seems inevitable, given the > complexity of modern societies. It will inevitably lag behind the pace of > innovation and expansion of the Internet. This requires deep commitment to > and understanding of human rights by the systems designers who modify the > Internet environment in real time.* > ** ** > The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education > concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the > context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions > regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet > engineers and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is > impossible for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct > effect, the “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place > in real time and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers > making design decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of > human rights norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to > preventing serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human > rights, like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be > decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of > potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized > ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole.**** > ** ** > *The obligation of all governments to promote knowledge of human rights > has taken on new urgency in the Internet era because basic structural and > design decisions about cyberspace will continue to be made by Internet > engineers and administrators at a speed that defies the possibilities of > detailed policy guidance or adoption of best practice norms. Understanding > of human rights must therefore be generalized so as to avert their > inadvertent compromise.* > ** ** > Therefore, the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to > be, a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC > condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever else they > may occur, and the IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to > support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that > developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can > maximize the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human > experience for all people, making ever more real the human flourishing that > is both the reality and the promise of the Internet, and doing so “without > regard to frontiers.” **** > ** ** > *The Internet Governance Caucus of the Internet Governance Forum > therefore declares that the Internet is, and by right ought to be, a place > for the full expression of human freedoms and equality. The IGC condemns > violations of human rights both on the Internet and elsewhere. The IGC > calls upon the United Nations and all people to support the widest spread > of human rights education so that those who continue to develop and use the > Internet may maximize its ability to enhance the human experience and to > turn into reality the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights > to do so “through any media and regardless of frontiers.”* > * * > -----Original Message----- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: Adam Peake ; McTim ; Izumi > AIZU > Cc: Paul Lehto ; governance < > governance at lists.igcaucus.org> > Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 8:00 pm > Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement > from IGC???] > > Dear All, > > From this email, you will see that the Statement was put up for 48 hour > period, see email below. > > Sala > > However, to factor in your concerns, I have made a final call for > consensus. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Shahzad Ahmad > Cc: Robert Guerra > > > Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no > easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous > issues to a cohesive succint statement. > > The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments > and contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap > this up in time by at least the 29th February, 2012. > > Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a >> statement. If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we >> can call for contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 >> hours through the statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would >> like to send a Statement by the 29th February, 2012. >> >> The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place >> between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: >> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx >> >> *Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email:* >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >> the panel event. >> >> >> >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >> Rue. >> >> >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >> possible. >> >> >> >> Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human >> Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting >> in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? >> >> Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human >> rights:- >> >> - privacy >> - security >> - freedom of expression >> - intellectual property >> >> or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the >>> Agenda: >>> >>> >>> See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true >>> >>> >>> Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet >>> On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision >>> to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at >>> its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative >>> of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. >>> This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom >>> of expression on the Internet. >>> "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human >>> rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister >>> for Foreign Affairs. >>> Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and >>> protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, >>> presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN >>> Human Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl >>> Bildt gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in >>> La Rue's report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of >>> influential countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. >>> This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude >>> today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and >>> representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and >>> civil society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of >>> expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human >>> Rights Council for the first time. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and >>>> use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that >>>> there has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the >>>> years. >>>> >>>> We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put >>>> together a first draft for others to comment. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Robert, >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? >>>>> Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes & regards >>>>> Shahzad >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Brett, >>>>> > >>>>> > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance >>>>> Forum should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, >>>>> that was proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva >>>>> this past week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the >>>>> proposal and it was not accepted. >>>>> > >>>>> > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the >>>>> meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes >>>>> at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >>>>> > is still being discussed. >>>>> > >>>>> > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated >>>>> effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >>>>> > >>>>> > regards >>>>> > >>>>> > Robert >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > R. Guerra >>>>> > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>> > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>>> > >>>>> > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Thanks Joy, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the >>>>> High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb >>>>> 29). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the >>>>> realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil >>>>> society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with >>>>> confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the >>>>> broader constellation of human rights. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and >>>>> recommendations can be found here: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>>>> >> >>>>> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the >>>>> actual Panel. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Brett >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> Brett Solomon >>>>> >> Executive Director | Access >>>>> >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>>>> >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>>>> >> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights >>>>> Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >>>>> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >>>>> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >>>>> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >>>>> the panel event. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >>>>> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >>>>> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you >>>>> are making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and >>>>> cite www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 >>>>> country reports and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La >>>>> Rue. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around >>>>> the panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >>>>> possible. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Kind regards >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Joy Liddicoat >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Project Coordinator >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>>>> >> >>>>> >> www.apc.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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 28 23:39:07 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:39:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: <8A6FC797-9800-482B-A42B-79AD4667AA0B@privaterra.org> References: <8CEC48AA49261B9-18B8-6D8B@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com> <8A6FC797-9800-482B-A42B-79AD4667AA0B@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Agree. Much improved. Adam On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Rony, > > Nice rewrite :) > > Sala, > > If there's consensus on the revised language, suggest the text be posted in > the IGC website. > > Robert > -- > > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-02-28, at 6:48 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > > Dear All -- > > Herewith a proposed rewrite, attempting to simplify and clarify. > > Each paragraph of the original draft is followed in italics by a proposed > edited version. > > Best regards, Rony Koven > > Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their > technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without > borders. > > The Internet has transformed the reality of human rights by creating a space > where communications can become universally participatory and truly flow in > all directions, regardless of frontiers, instead of the previous situation > in which information flows were largely top to bottom, flowing from content > creators to content consumers. > > The open architecture of the Internet creates a new global commons that > facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not > limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, > association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a > livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology and > design choices simultaneously extend human interaction in multiple > directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more > democratic basis than previously imaginable. > > [Previous graf unchanged, adding the word “global” before “commons.”] > > This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the > Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the > Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by > already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought > leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as “evangelists.” > Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have caused the Internet > to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining democracy and religion > at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for all, without the > prominent downsides often associated with some actual implementations of > government and religion. > > [Drop the previous graf. Religion should be left out of this.] > > The most powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet is > not where these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in > courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the > Internet arises from.  How can such a right of interference with freedom of > expression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the > very nature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given that > the Internet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can any > single business, national government, or person obtain and enforce a right > to interfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack of > clarity thought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come from” > simply pales in comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted right to > interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet.  Any hypothetical > “right to interfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of expression is > far more difficult to justify and explain than upholding the natural human > urge for self-expression and self-determination as a right.  Thus, absent > highly exceptional circumstances, in a contest between interference and free > expression, free expression always has the better case, regardless of > whether free expression is thought of as an enforceable legal right or not. > > By its very nature, the Internet makes possible the facilitation of > universal free expression. Given that the Internet is both ownerless and > borderless, no single business, national government, or person has a right > to interfere with the worldwide freedom of the Internet. Any limit to the > natural human right of freedom of expression has become far more difficult > to justify and explain. Except in extraordinary circumstances that should be > as narrowly defined as possible, restrictions to freedom of expression on > and off line now seem even more illegitimate than ever. > > Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered > with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including > businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, > administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more > choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the > Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the Internet > is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much “governmental” > interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of the relative > amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is extremely clear that > both governments and businesses can and are acting in ways that interfere > with the Internet, either by failing to fully understand the Internet, or by > pursuing narrow interests over the public interest as a whole. Any such > government or business that acts to impair or impede the global freedom of > the Internet should not be heard to claim that they “have the Internet” (in > the case of a nation that filters or otherwise interferes) or that they > “support the Internet” (in the case of a business acting in fact to impede > access to the full Internet, or censor content, etc.) > > The Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by > many actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web > designers, administrators. Commercial interests are often better able to > impair or impede human rights on the Internet than governments. Some > ostensibly governmental interferences with the Internet are driven by > business lobbying. In other cases, businesses may mask the reality that they > are in fact imposing limits for political reasons dictated by governments. > Regardless of their relative responsibilities, both governments and > businesses can and have acted in ways that interfere with the Internet, > either out of failure to understand its nature and technology or in pursuit > of narrow interests. Those who interfere with global or local Internet > freedom should not be allowed to claim that they act in its support. > > Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of > host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights > laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that > domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be > met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single > country. > > Although Internet companies must follow the laws of host countries, they are > also obliged to respect universal human rights, notably freedom of > expression. Claims that domestic laws require businesses to cooperate with > censorship or other restrictions should be countered by invoking the > obligations of national governments to honor the universal human rights > texts that bind them. > > In the general context of market freedom, the development of new > technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their > regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of > regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities without > any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the > countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on > the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This > requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and others > who are creating the Internet in real time. > > The pace of development of contemporary communications technology in a > globalized free market seems bound to continue to outstrip the ability of > regulators to keep up. Some regulation seems inevitable, given the > complexity of modern societies. It will inevitably lag behind the pace of > innovation and expansion of the Internet. This requires deep commitment to > and understanding of human rights by the systems designers who modify the > Internet environment in real time. > > The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education > concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the > context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions > regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet engineers > and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is impossible > for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct effect, the > “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place in real time > and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers making design > decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of human rights > norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to preventing > serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human rights, > like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be > decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of > potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized > ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. > > The obligation of all governments to promote knowledge of human rights has > taken on new urgency in the Internet era because basic structural and design > decisions about cyberspace will continue to be made by Internet engineers > and administrators at a speed that defies the possibilities of detailed > policy guidance or adoption of best practice norms. Understanding of human > rights must therefore be generalized so as to avert their inadvertent > compromise. > > Therefore, the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to be, > a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC > condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever else they > may occur, and the IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to > support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that > developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can maximize > the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human experience for all > people, making ever more real the human flourishing that is both the reality > and the promise of the Internet, and doing so “without regard to frontiers.” > > The Internet Governance Caucus of the Internet Governance Forum therefore > declares that the Internet is, and by right ought to be, a place for the > full expression of human freedoms and equality. The IGC condemns violations > of human rights both on the Internet and elsewhere. The IGC calls upon the > United Nations and all people to support the widest spread of human rights > education so that those who continue to develop and use the Internet may > maximize its ability to enhance the human experience and to turn into > reality the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to do so > “through any media and regardless of frontiers.” > > -----Original Message----- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: Adam Peake ; McTim ; Izumi AIZU > > Cc: Paul Lehto ; governance > > Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 8:00 pm > Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from > IGC???] > > Dear All, > > From this email, you will see that the Statement was put up for 48 hour > period, see email below. > > Sala > > However, to factor in your concerns, I have made a final call for > consensus. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Shahzad Ahmad > Cc: Robert Guerra > > > Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no > easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous > issues to a cohesive succint statement. > > The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments and > contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap this > up in time by at least the 29th February, 2012. > > Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. >> If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for >> contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the >> statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a >> Statement by the 29th February, 2012. >> >> The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place >> between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: >> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx >> >> Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email: >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual >> report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session >> will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of >> Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel >> event. >> >> >> >> >> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >> >> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >> >> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are >> >> making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite >> >> www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports >> >> and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >> >> >> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >> >> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >> >> possible. >> >> >> >> Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human >> Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting >> in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? >> >> Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human >> rights:- >> >> privacy >> security >> freedom of expression >> intellectual property >> >> or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the >>> Agenda: >>> >>> >>> See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true >>> >>> >>> Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet >>> >>> On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision >>> to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at >>> its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative >>> of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. >>> This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom >>> of expression on the Internet. >>> "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human >>> rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister >>> for Foreign Affairs. >>> Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and >>> protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, >>> presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN Human >>> Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt >>> gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in La Rue's >>> report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of influential >>> countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. >>> This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude >>> today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and >>> representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and civil >>> society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of >>> expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human >>> Rights Council for the first time. >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and >>>> use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that there >>>> has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the years. >>>> >>>> We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put >>>> together a first draft for others to comment. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Robert, >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? >>>>> Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes & regards >>>>> Shahzad >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > Brett, >>>>> > >>>>> > In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum >>>>> > should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was >>>>> > proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past >>>>> > week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it >>>>> > was not accepted. >>>>> > >>>>> > As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the >>>>> > meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes >>>>> > at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >>>>> > is still being discussed. >>>>> > >>>>> > Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated >>>>> > effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >>>>> > >>>>> > regards >>>>> > >>>>> > Robert >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > -- >>>>> > R. Guerra >>>>> > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>> > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>> > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>>> > >>>>> > On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Thanks Joy, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the >>>>> >> High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb >>>>> >> 29). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the >>>>> >> realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil >>>>> >> society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with >>>>> >> confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the >>>>> >> broader constellation of human rights. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> For those who are interested, our brief submission and >>>>> >> recommendations can be found here: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>>>> >> >>>>> >> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the >>>>> >> actual Panel. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Brett >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> Brett Solomon >>>>> >> Executive Director | Access >>>>> >> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>>>> >> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>>>> >> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights >>>>> >> Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >>>>> >> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >>>>> >> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >>>>> >> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >>>>> >> the panel event. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >>>>> >> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >>>>> >> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are >>>>> >> making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite >>>>> >> www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports >>>>> >> and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >>>>> >> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >>>>> >> possible. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Kind regards >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Joy Liddicoat >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Project Coordinator >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>>>> >> >>>>> >> www.apc.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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed Feb 29 01:34:04 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:04:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ITU Propaganda in APRICOT: "ITU is the original multistakeholder approach !!! " Message-ID: Copied from the APRICOT live transcript, proceedings of the session Internet Governance: ..... In terms of what I would like to say for the structure, I think the most > important thing to remember -- when I was introduced, there was reference > made to my role in the expert group appointed by the secretary-general of > the ITU on internationaltelecommunication regulations, ITRs. > I thought it was fascinating, because that is in fact the second attempt > to create anintergovernmental organization -- the very first one was the > ... postal union. > Those associated with ITU, like myself, we don't talk about the IPU that > much, but as a schoolar, I have to be honest and say the UPU was the very > first one. > Then in 1865 the governments of Europe got together to come up with rules > about how the telegraph would be governed. > The telegraph was active from 1848. > Among the things, among the at the nomna they had to deal with were > things like the telegraph line coming from Germany to a place called Achen > and stopping, and then the physical messages being carried across the > border in France and being put into the telegraph line again on [ ...] on > the other side of the border, because this was seen as something the > governments wanted to control. > Of course, we had the at the nomna of a man called Julius Ryeter, whose > name lives on in the company Reuters, who decided to use the pigeons to > accelerate the processby which this information came from the telegraph and > was walked across the border and then re-inputd into the telegraph. > He carried the financial and economic information using pigeons from the > Germanside, who were not amenable to the customs procedures and so on, and > as a result the ah kayak procedure that was in place did not last for > very long, Mr Mr Reuter managed to leverage his activities into > longstanding and powerful news organization that carries his name until > today. > So you can see that from the very beginning of electronic communication, > the question of governmental coordination, governmental control over > content, the private sector's involvement in it in various ways, including > in getting around thegovernment controls, was a feature of the way > electronic communications weregoverned. > I find it interesting to think that these issues that we think are being > addressed for thevery first time were in fact addressed -- they are not > really new, they have just taken different forms. > One of the things about the ITU that was created at that point and which > continuesuntil today is the involvement of technical experts in the day-to-day > activities of decision-making and coordination. > For example, while the deliberation that some of us, for example, when I > was working in government, I used to go to the meny potentialry and spend > five or [ ...] five or six days, go through interminable long discussions > about how to elect the nextoffice bearers and give direction to the > organization per se. > But in fact the really important work in the ITU is done in the various > Working Groups. > Under the ITU, particularly under the standard spot and under the radio, > ITUR. > In these cases there is involvement far beyond that of ..., it is the > technical people, the manufacturing companies, the operating companies, > various entities that participate inthe actual decision-making. > One could say that the ITU is the original multistakeholder approach. > And we have to keep that in mind, because governments by themselves will > havedifficulty in understanding the complexities and offsetting -- > ^correction and of setting the framework for this extraordinarily dynamic > sector of the economy that now we call the Internet economy. > So with that context, I think it is important for us to understand that > we are at an important decision point. > We have had five years of the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, and we > are nowlooking to see IGF 2, the mandate has been renewed, but how can it > be strengthened, how can it be enhanced? There are, of course, different > viewpoints on this matter,about making it an outcome-oriented organization, > which Mr Ravi Shanker will talkabout, as against keeping the value of the > organization as a platform that people can freely express their ideas. > Because one of the difficulties, of course, is that the minute you go > beyondgovernance, one vote per country kind of model, it becomes very > difficult to getdecision-making. > We have seen that in the ITU world, in the Internet world, we have actually > broughtnew ways of decision-making among experts that are actually quite exemplary, > even in terms of governments should be wanting to learn about what we > call ... working code -- getting the job done, rather than interminably talking > about things, and by the time the definition is arrived at the matter has > been already resolved on the ground. > Those are the kinds of issues we will be talking about. > My task here is basically to set the frame, which I will be joined in by the > panelists through their opening statements, and then to raise a few questions, > to see whether we can get some interactivity among this multistakeholder > group and with you, and hopefully advance our understanding of the > issues, the challenges that face us today. > With that, let me invite Mr Hasanul Haq Inu, member of Parliament and chairman > of the standing committee on post and telecommunications from Bangladesh. APPLAUSE>>Hasanul Haq Inu: Thank you very much, Professor. [ ...] My co-panelists, good morning and good afternoon. > I am from Bangladesh and I am a politician, one of the persons who is in a > position --people become scared, because when ... for this to close it. > So do not get afraid, because the moderator, is in due time I will try to close > my mouth and listen to you, because in politics, those politicians are > successful when they are good at listening, and those who do not hear, > they are bad politicians. > The world is governed by bad and good politicians. > I am one of them, so I have bad things and good things also. > In December 2012 in tube, the ITU Conference is going to be held (Dubai > ^). > At that Conference they will discuss the governance issue of the > Internet, but on thegovernance issues we should be very clear, the > governance is ITU and the Internet Governance is very different, but the > governance of the Internet is a broad based issue which needs to be > addressed properly. > In that Conference, I think the government and the multistakeholders will > debate onthe jurisdiction of the international Internet. > Many governments are also considering the continuation of the existing > policy on the Internet. > This could signal a shift in the regulatory paradigm on both the > international and national levels. > Well in 1998 the treaty was adopted by ITU which will be reviewed in that > Conference, and some member states may put forward the idea of major > changes with respect to the Internet. > So we are on the brink of a very interesting debate, and we need to take > veryimportant decisions, and there are many proposals floating across the > world. > One proposal is to develop an oversighting body on the nongovernmental > multistakeholder organizations, like i [ ...] ICANN,* there are other > proposals **and to bring under ITU the core functions of many organizations > and nongovernmentalorganizations like IEEE, ISOC, ICANN, WOCC, > particularly with respect to the design of systems infrastructure, the development > of protocols and the management of domain numbering associations. * Session in progress. http://meetings.apnic.net/33/remote Sivasubramanian M ISOC India Chennai http://isocindiachennai.org facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a http://internetstudio.in/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 01:51:36 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:21:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: ITU Propaganda in APRICOT: "ITU is the original multistakeholder approach !!! " In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > Copied from the APRICOT live transcript, proceedings of the session > Internet Governance: > > ..... > > In terms of what I would like to say for the structure, I think the most >> important thing to remember -- when I was introduced, there was >> reference made to my role in the expert group appointed by the secretary-general >> of the ITU on internationaltelecommunication regulations, ITRs. >> I thought it was fascinating, because that is in fact the second attempt >> to create anintergovernmental organization -- the very first one was the >> ... postal union. >> Those associated with ITU, like myself, we don't talk about the IPU that >> much, but as a schoolar, I have to be honest and say the UPU was the >> very first one. >> Then in 1865 the governments of Europe got together to come up with >> rules about how the telegraph would be governed. >> The telegraph was active from 1848. >> Among the things, among the at the nomna they had to deal with were >> things like the telegraph line coming from Germany to a place called Achen >> and stopping, and then the physical messages being carried across the >> border in France and being put into the telegraph line again on [ ...] >> on the other side of the border, because this was seen as something the >> governments wanted to control. >> Of course, we had the at the nomna of a man called Julius Ryeter, whose >> name lives on in the company Reuters, who decided to use the pigeons to >> accelerate the processby which this information came from the telegraph and >> was walked across the border and then re-inputd into the telegraph. >> He carried the financial and economic information using pigeons from the >> Germanside, who were not amenable to the customs procedures and so on, and >> as a result the ah kayak procedure that was in place did not last for >> very long, Mr Mr Reuter managed to leverage his activities into >> longstanding and powerful news organization that carries his name until >> today. >> So you can see that from the very beginning of electronic communication, >> the question of governmental coordination, governmental control over >> content, the private sector's involvement in it in various ways, including >> in getting around thegovernment controls, was a feature of the way >> electronic communications weregoverned. >> I find it interesting to think that these issues that we think are being >> addressed for thevery first time were in fact addressed -- they are not >> really new, they have just taken different forms. >> One of the things about the ITU that was created at that point and which >> continuesuntil today is the involvement of technical experts in the day-to-day >> activities of decision-making and coordination. >> For example, while the deliberation that some of us, for example, when I >> was working in government, I used to go to the meny potentialry and >> spend five or [ ...] five or six days, go through interminable long >> discussions about how to elect the nextoffice bearers and give direction >> to the organization per se. >> But in fact the really important work in the ITU is done in the various >> Working Groups. >> Under the ITU, particularly under the standard spot and under the radio, >> ITUR. >> In these cases there is involvement far beyond that of ..., it is the >> technical people, the manufacturing companies, the operating companies, >> various entities that participate inthe actual decision-making. >> One could say that the ITU is the original multistakeholder approach. >> And we have to keep that in mind, because governments by themselves will >> havedifficulty in understanding the complexities and offsetting -- >> ^correction and of setting the framework for this extraordinarily dynamic >> sector of the economy that now we call the Internet economy. >> So with that context, I think it is important for us to understand that >> we are at an important decision point. >> We have had five years of the IGF, the Internet Governance Forum, and we >> are nowlooking to see IGF 2, the mandate has been renewed, but how can >> it be strengthened, how can it be enhanced? There are, of course, different >> viewpoints on this matter,about making it an outcome-oriented organization, >> which Mr Ravi Shanker will talkabout, as against keeping the value of the >> organization as a platform that people can freely express their ideas. >> Because one of the difficulties, of course, is that the minute you go >> beyondgovernance, one vote per country kind of model, it becomes very >> difficult to getdecision-making. >> We have seen that in the ITU world, in the Internet world, we have actually >> broughtnew ways of decision-making among experts that are actually quite exemplary, >> even in terms of governments should be wanting to learn about what we >> call ... working code -- getting the job done, rather than interminably talking >> about things, and by the time the definition is arrived at the matter has >> been already resolved on the ground. >> Those are the kinds of issues we will be talking about. >> My task here is basically to set the frame, which I will be joined in by the >> panelists through their opening statements, and then to raise a few questions, >> to see whether we can get some interactivity among this multistakeholder >> group and with you, and hopefully advance our understanding of the >> issues, the challenges that face us today. >> With that, let me invite Mr Hasanul Haq Inu, member of Parliament and chairman >> of the standing committee on post and telecommunications from Bangladesh. > > > APPLAUSE>>Hasanul Haq Inu: Thank you very much, Professor. > > [ ...] My co-panelists, good morning and good afternoon. >> I am from Bangladesh and I am a politician, one of the persons who is in a >> position --people become scared, because when ... for this to close it. >> So do not get afraid, because the moderator, is in due time I will try >> to close my mouth and listen to you, because in politics, those >> politicians are successful when they are good at listening, and those >> who do not hear, they are bad politicians. >> The world is governed by bad and good politicians. >> I am one of them, so I have bad things and good things also. >> In December 2012 in tube, the ITU Conference is going to be held (Dubai >> ^). >> At that Conference they will discuss the governance issue of the >> Internet, but on thegovernance issues we should be very clear, the >> governance is ITU and the Internet Governance is very different, but the >> governance of the Internet is a broad based issue which needs to be >> addressed properly. >> In that Conference, I think the government and the multistakeholders will >> debate onthe jurisdiction of the international Internet. >> Many governments are also considering the continuation of the existing >> policy on the Internet. >> This could signal a shift in the regulatory paradigm on both the >> international and national levels. >> Well in 1998 the treaty was adopted by ITU which will be reviewed in that >> Conference, and some member states may put forward the idea of major >> changes with respect to the Internet. >> So we are on the brink of a very interesting debate, and we need to take >> veryimportant decisions, and there are many proposals floating across the >> world. >> One proposal is to develop an oversighting body on the nongovernmental >> multistakeholder organizations, like i [ ...] ICANN,* there are other >> proposals **and to bring under ITU the core functions of many organizations >> and nongovernmentalorganizations like IEEE, ISOC, ICANN, WOCC, >> particularly with respect to the design of systems infrastructure, the development >> of protocols and the management of domain numbering associations. * > > > Whether in that Conference or across the worldings we are going to > determine the appropriate role of the governments in the 21st century. > These are the things, the proposals from India, and South Africa, they > are floating aproposal, and Russia, Arabic and other organizations are trying > to float other proposals, and the Indian, Brazil and South African > proposal is the committee to -- to develop a committee for Internet > related policies, CIRP, so these are the proposals. > [ ...] But the major question is how this world body, [ ...] can > establish authority over the technical and personal functions of the > Internet. > That is the question. > As you know, access to the Internet and information is a ... of the > people, unlike most communications media, Internet technology is based on global, > open and nonproprietary standard and thus do challenge the existing > regulatory institutions based on national boundaries. > First is a very broad term, used in many different context -- as plying > to activity as diverse as operation of technical standard, operation of technical > infrastructure,development, evolution, [ ...] its activities are not restricted > to the activities of the government or a world body. > Many different types of stakeholders have a role in defining and carrying out > Internet Governance activities. > In public policy areas, governmental intervention has taken place in > order to deal with specific issues that might hinder access or use of Internet, > for example domesticrestrictions are removed by the government to pave > the way for the entry of IP companies, including allowing IP telephoneo, > developing ... to connect withsatellites, setting up nationwide local > call tariffs or flat fees for local Internet dial-up, providing easy market > entry and interconnections of ISPs. > Also access for international bandwidth. > These initial steps have contributed to offering public Internet services. > Moreover, experience has shown that subsidising basic intrash content and > skills in terms of access and use can benefit the sectors development. > Moreover, the governments do have a strong contribution to several critical > public policy ideas, limited to Internet, such as security, privacy, > telecommunications policy,universal access, protection, e-commerce and other > economic issues. > Besides these governmental roles, the cyberspace and many international > agencies and other intergovernmental organizations are playing a role in > Internet Governance, for example ITU, Unesco, other party organizations, organizations > for economic cooperation and development, OECD, and council of the Asia > Pacific forum. > Apart from these, the governments -- the critical Internet resource, CIR, > cannot function at all, is complicated. > As you know, the current structure of the ICANN is ... because of this > relationship with the US Government. > The Internet's technologycal development as well as administration grew > overall withlittle government regulatory intervention. > It developed from the bottom up, plainly by technical developers, > providers and users. > The model contrasts with that of telecommunication and broadcasting > industries, while in many cases top-down national government regulation > historically guided the structure, the design of the media. > The technological development and administration of the Internet is > involved in ensuring that the network is interoperable, functional, stable, > secure, efficient, as well as capable in the long run. > No single person, organization, or country manages the Internet. > Instead, the Internet's tellingcal management is handled by many entities which > work with a coordinated and open framework, such as IEGF, IEAP, > governmentalconsortium, consensus driven bottom-up in the field. > Most of the protocols at the core of the Internet are protocols based on > open standard that are efficient, trusted and open to global > implementation with little or no licensing restrictions. > They are available to anyone, everyone at no cost. > So here we are now with the governmental bodies, intergovernmental > organization,national institutions, so we need to develop a consensus on > dos and don'ts and we need to take care of the don'ts to develop the > relations, the technical protocols as well as programs. > Here comes the role of the governmental body. > The open nature of the Internet needs to be kept and not to be Dibbs turn. > It will not be wise, from my understanding, that it will not be wise to > push IEGT,IEAP, WOCC or ICANN or APNIC under ITU or any other body, but > intergovernmental and governmental bodies can be developed and can > function in a complimentary way and can have a direct relation. > So a new multilateral treaty or agreement on certain principles can be > developed to keep going the functioning of the Internet and promote > solidarity and cooperation between states and underline the public value > of the Internet beyond commercialinterests. > IGF needs to focus on finding a new way of intergovernance, softer > governance, to define the parameters for the rights of the Internet. > Having said that, I will come back after listening to you, with the > national ideas andregional ideas need to be activated and need to be very vibrant, > to keep going the Internet paradigm. Thank you very much APPLAUSE>>Rohan Samarajiva: Thank you very much, MrINu for a comprehensive overview. *India's views on Internet Governance:* I would like to invite Mr N Ravi Shanker to make his opening statement. >>N Ravishanker: Thank you. At the outset I would like to say that the distinguished panelists have set > the tone for the session. > I will only add what I can call flavour from the government side, some > experience of having participated in several ideas and ICANN meetings > When we think of Internet and governance as descrint words, we look at Internet > and trade, the Internet represents free trade, free thought and free world, > a ... thought process. > When you look at government as a separate word, you think it controls, > and you begin to use another word called draconian, so you have draconian > and somewhere you have to try to put the words for Internet Governance > and try to say what does Internet Governance mean. > I think the whole concept of Internet Governance dwelt on the sole issue > -- yes, thereis a community, there is a community who needs a direction and > in order to have a direction we need to have principles, protocols -- principles > and protocols are all what governance is about. > Whether we like the word governance or not, it is what is important. > Ultimately, TCP and ICP are all protocols. > So when we work in the Internet sphere, we have so many technical bodies and > we evolve standard and we come to a common understanding, yes, we will > adhere to these standards. > As a large user community grows, and there are issues that perm yacht > beyond technical but go into the associate logical realm, that is where governments > come into play, then you begin to say, well, all aspects of the Internet > are not technical but there are many aspects of the Internet which are socio-economic > and associate logic, and governments begin to regulate on these things. > Often, it is the clash between two sets of ideas or ideologies, technical > andgovernance related. > If you look at the broader picture, as the honourable member for > parliament of ban la desh has mentioned, we move to a situation where legislation > is brought aboutthrough a process of dialogue and discussion. > We into to look at Internet Governance from the larger area, that it is > to foster goodwill and ensure there is a degree of coherence and > consistency when we deal with these issue. > Let's look at the bodies that handle Internet Governance. > We have ICANN, we have APNIC and the various ... and the IGF ICANN > typically deals with names and numbers and the numbers have been further > delegated down to the IR, of which APNIC is one such entity in Asia. > Each one of the bodies, whether it is ICANN or APNIC and other RIRs, work > under a set of protocols and processes to which they try to govern the > names and numbers. > We who have been using the CGDEs and now the ideas variations of [ ...] > ICT, all of those are something where we have what we can call standard > protocols. > Behind the standard protocols are other bodies, union core, WTC and the > like, all of which refer or relate to saiding up standards through > conferences and dialogue discourse. > The whole issue -- I am sure my friend from Google would like to respond > when those issues come up -- when governments across the globe look in > their respective spheres as to what should be regulated, and in the > Indian context, our information technology Act, you look at features or > aspects which govern society and that which govern society, you try to > bring about the regulation in order to ensure that within aspeck > sovereign boundary, you try and delineate what should be allowed and what > should not be, according to a set of social mores defined in that > particular soavment this is exactly what we feel the sovereign responsibility > is in the whole process of legislation, and the government tries to > create discourse and dialogue in order to bring about what we call legislation > and a set of rules. > Whenever there is a new diversion or way in which things work, there is > always a certain amount of ... but at the end of the day we have to have > give and take and see each other's point of view. > I am getting to the point of the ideas per se. > The idea is a body which has been created in a manner to have open forum, open > dialogue with multistakeholders. > Even ICANN and APNIC are also multistakeholders in that respect. > However, the idea of this multistakeholders in the sense that it has > industry, academic and society and the government in the process of the > MAG. > I would like to dwell upon the way in which the MAG should work, because > whenthe renewal of the ideas ernetprocess has occurred, we from the > Government of Indiaarticulated the vie point that while the idea has > worked well, we feel it should movetowards a new paradigm, being that it should > have a development orientation and should move in the direction of an outcome > orientation. > The development orientation because as one of the developing economies, > we feel that the Internet and several issues relating to the governance > and related aspects would be only when it has some socio-economic growth > and inclusiveness into it. > That is why, when we hosted the third IGF in India at Hider be a add, we called > it Internet for all, and the idea of Internet for all was inclusive > growth. > Subsequently, the chairman at Vilnius also adopted that, and the movement > has been towards the development paradigm, rather than any other > contentious issues of theInternet. > There are two tracks in the idea, one is the enhanced cooperation and > another is what is called implements of idea. > We have articulated views for the implement of the idea, but the enhancedcooperation, > we feel certain aspects which are falling under the domain of theUNSCD > should move to such a platform, so that the bodies can discuss the public > policy issues. > Today there is no such entity or committee which can do that, [ ...] and > many of theissues which have been mentioned by the [ ...]-on member of > parliament from Bangladesh, we need to talk on public policy issues, for > which we need an outcome orientation and this would help us look at it as > a committee of nations, in order to move toward commonality of thought > and purpose. > I would like to leave it at this and thank the panel for giving me the > opportunity to express my vie point. Thank you >>Rohan Samarajiva: I would like to invite Mr Paul Wilson, Director General of APNIC, to make his openings comments. > > > Session in progress. > > http://meetings.apnic.net/33/remote > > > Sivasubramanian M > ISOC India Chennai > http://isocindiachennai.org > > > facebook: goo.gl/1VvIG > LinkedIn: goo.gl/eUt7s > Twitter: http://goo.gl/kaQ3a > http://internetstudio.in/ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 02:17:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:17:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and the Internet [Final Call for Consensus] In-Reply-To: References: <4F4D57FE.3010700@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Dear All, We would like to close the comments period. Let us have your quick thoughts. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Tracey Naughton wrote: > yes > > Tracey > > Tracey Naughton > tracey at traceynaughton.com > S 37. 04.260 > E 144.12.910 > 22 Adams Street > Castlemaine 3450 > Australia > > land line: +613 54706853 > mobile: +61 (0)413 019707 > skype: tnaughton9999 > > > > > > On 29/02/2012, at 9:41 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > Yes, release the document. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > >> >> On 2/28/2012 1:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> A Call for Volunteers to initiate a draft statement was made and Paul >> Lehto responded. The first draft was put to the IGC through email and the >> Statement Workspace for comments and contributions. We thank Paul and all >> those that contributed. >> >> The intention was to finalise our position to enable us to release a >> Statement by the 29th February, 2012 as the United Nations Human Rights >> Council is set to convene. >> >> Whilst we have missed the 13th February, 2012 deadline for Submissions, >> they can still factor in our Statement in the Panel Papers so it is >> important that we get this out post haste. I am mindful that at the time I >> write this email, it is *Tuesday, 28 February 2012, 19:20:54* *CET* >> >> You can read the edited Statement on "Human Rights and the Internet" >> via the Statement Workspace which is >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/56 >> >> May we have your views whether you agree for this Statement to be >> released to the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday 29 February, 2012? >> >> Please vote:- >> >> 1. Yes >> 2. No >> 3. Unsure; >> 4. Other [Add comments] >> >> >> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 <%2B679%20998%202851> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 03:27:12 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:27:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It In-Reply-To: (message from michael gurstein on Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:44:35 -0800) References: Message-ID: <20120229082712.59BA24F53@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > I think it is arguable that email is now what might be classified as both a > utility http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+Utilities and > an "essential service" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_services and > would, I believe under certain circumstances (war for example) be treated as > such by governments. What that implies to me at least, is that there is the > need for regulation to ensure a minimum level of service and service > standards including in this instance a minimally acceptable and usable > "help" function. I would suggest that it suffices to classify email as a form of correspondence. I think that many people would agree with this classification. It is in my opinion clearly less problematic than the notions of "public utility" and "essential service". If email is a form or correspondence, then it is covered by existing international human rights law which says inter alia that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his correspondence, and that everyone has the right to protection of the law against such interference. (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 17.) In my view this implies both the aspect that I've been emphasizing (that it's wrong to close down a user's email address without warning, in reaction to actions of the user that the user could reasonably assume were acceptable) and the aspect that you've been emphasizing (Google's choice of making themselves very hard to be contacted effectively by someone whose gmail address is no longer working.) And it furthermore implies that effective legal remedies must exist. But as I wrote before, legislative action to create new laws to specifically implement these email related human rights, or legal action to create caselaw to the same effect, is not what I'd like to see happen unless there's first a reasonable consensus-oriented standardization process to define, in a broadly acceptable and technically and economically sensible way, what is and what is not acceptable behavior of email service providers, so that that "protection of the law against such interference" would consist in national law that just defines penalties for noncompliance with a certain Internet Standard, maybe together with rules of procedure for enforcement etc. But the substantive specifications of what is and what is not acceptable behavior of email service providers should IMO not be defined at the national level, and certainly not by a group of people whose understanding of the Internet is much less profound than their understanding of a specific national legal system! Otherwise, due to a variety of forces including the international and interconnected nature of the Internet, one powerful country's legal system will unavoidably to a large extent end up being exported to other countries without giving them any real choice in the matter, in violation of the right of peoples to democratic self-determination, which is also a human right. Actually this is a problem that exists already, in particular in the area of "intellectual property" law, but we don't need to make the situation worse by expanding this wrongness of legal imperialiasm to more areas of law. 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 Wed Feb 29 03:31:18 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:31:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It In-Reply-To: <20120228101041.74B004F53@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Good points Norbert, I agree that going the route of the IETF also might be a place to start... Since the path towards enforcing responsible behaviour by Google unfortunately looks like it may be a long and difficult one, taking multiple paths to achieve this would be a useful strategy. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:11 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It Michael Gurstein wrote (addressing primarily McTim): > It is I think only a matter of time before this is widely recognized > politically and some sort of regulatory environment established--it is > probably only delayed because of the speed of evolution of the tech, > the technological illiteracy of most politicians (among the last > groups in the world to move into the email enabled world--according to > studies in various countries), and the difficulty of transnational > regulation and the absence of a framework through which such > regulation could be introduced and managed. All these seem to be pretty serious difficulties in my eyes (even thouh an --admittedly far from perfect-- framework for the introduction and management of such regulation already exists, see my last paragraph below)... and add to that the fact that any attempt at such regulation must be careful to avoid bad side effects auch as making it prohibitively difficult for small providers to comply, or making it too difficult or risky to provide email or other communication services to people in other countries. Plus the political obstacles that you'll face from people who are concerned about the possibility of such negative side-effects and who would therefore rather avoid such regulation altogether -- unless you are careful to remove these risks before you enter the political arena, it wouldn't be just industry lobbyists who oppose proposals for such regulation, but many civil society folks also. > Your reference to PEBKAC is ridiculous... Yes, the particular context of that PEBKAC assertion was ridiculous because it was pointing a finger in the wrong direction. But I believe that there's a significant amount of PEBKAC involved at Google. In fact, I would suggest that your experience points to significant problems at three levels: (A) PEBKAC at Google - whoever either disabled your account manually or wrote the script that did that (B) Lack of adequate policies and processes at Google to avoid problem (A) or at least get it fixed quickly if it occurs (C) In the existing framework of Internet governance, lack of any effective action aimed at avoiding or minimizing problem (A) or (B). (I draw the conclusion about the lack of effective action aimed at avoiding or minimizing problem (A) or (B) both from your experience and from the fact that someone as knowledgeable as McTim about the existing framework of Internet governance can even disagree with our assertion that there is a problem here that should be addressed at the Internet governance level. :-) ) To make my position quite explicit, I think that the path of effective Internet governance action regarding this kind of problem doesn't start with calling for governmental regulation, but rather it starts with developing (at IETF) a reasonable Internet Standard that specifies the MUSTs and SHOULDs of responsibly providing email services to members of the general public. If once we have such a standards-track RFC, the situation still doesn't improve, we could then talk about escalating the issue by means of a fast-track submission of the RFC to become an ISO/IEC International Standard, and then suggesting to governments to make conformance to that standard legally mandatory. But I have a feeling that a standards-track RFC would sufficiently influence the major providers of web-based email services that such escalation wouldn't even be needed. 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 Wed Feb 29 03:31:18 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:31:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or "Being Evil" Without Really Thinking About It In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <47893854322B48F692452696781AE478@UserVAIO> Hi Adam and all, -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:41 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Blogpost: Gmail Hell Day 4: Dealing with the Borg (Or “Being Evil” Without Really Thinking About It Infuriating. And having had a bit of email hell recently (that's forced me to use gmail not to escape from it) I get your angst. YES... But, part of your blog you says "According to the Google search I just did some 720,341,564 people use gmail all over the world." and, "Why for example, gmail/Google hasn’t spent the money to set up an Ombudsperson service with an email that someone actually reads and answers is something that would, if Google were as I mentioned selling milk or mining coal, be something that legislatures would be compelling them to do " Think the answer is in the business model (it's the "cost of free", you might get this program for your classes GMAIL MAY BE "FREE" BUT AS YOU KNOW, MOST CERTAINLY ISN'T FREE... I THINK IT IS JUST SIGNIFCANTLY BAD CUSTOMER SERVICE... ) and number you found 720,341,564; it's not possible to provide customer service to 720,341,564 people. Is it? I'M NOT SURE WHY NOT... THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO GET COMPANIES TO ADJUST THEIR BEHAVIOUR TO FOLLOW CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS FOR MARKETS OF A BILLION OR SO PEOPLE... THEY MAY BE A BIT DRASTIC BUT MY GUESS IS THAT ONE OR TWO SUMMARY TRIALS, SENTENCES AND ENFORCEMENT OF PENALTIES WOULD WORK EQUALLY WELL WITH THE FOLKS AT GOOGLE OR WHEREVER... WHAT IS THEIR MONTHLY PROFIT, A $BILLION +... THAT BUYS AN AWFUL LOT OF FOLKS ANSWERING TELEPHONES AT $10/HR. And you can also try gmail-support at google.com I DID, AND AFTER 8 6 DAYS AND 9 EMAILS AND A REASONABLY WIDELY NOTED BLOGPOST, I FINALLY DID GET A RESPONSE.. M Adam On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I'm still not recovered... So sending this from a back-up > account--notably a community network that I at one time used as my > primary account but which I gave up for the siren song of gmail :(.   > The Vancouver Community Network has been providing volunteer based, > free email service for about 15 years or so and has done it reliably > and with remarkably little downtime or system failure. Also, they are > very responsive and just down the road (I've been on their Board off > and on for years... (There is I think a significant message there as > well... > > But to reply to McTim (and Norbert)... > > At one level my issues with gmail are consumer protection issues -- > which however, since they seem to be transnational it is hard to see > who/how I can invoke these (but I could be wrong... > > But at a deeper level I think it is not simply protecting the consumer > but regulating a utility... My guess is that if we asked virtually any > population in the world the appropriate set of questions the result > would be that they experience email not as a "consumer good" but > rather as a necessary element of their day to day infrastructure as a > citizen, consumer, business operator, parent etc.etc. And that any > significant disruption would be experienced in more or less the same > manner as a disruption in any other significant utility/infrastructure > of modern life... > > It is I think only a matter of time before this is widely recognized > politically and some sort of regulatory environment established--it is > probably only delayed because of the speed of evolution of the tech, > the technological illiteracy of most politicians (among the last > groups in the world to move into the email enabled world--according to > studies in various countries), and the difficulty of transnational > regulation and the absence of a framework through which such > regulation could be introduced and managed. > > Your reference to PEBKAC is ridiculous... I'm reasonably > well-educated/informed/intelligent... I made best efforts as indicated > in my blog post and I found myself in gmail hell (where I still reside > BTW... I've been searching around in gmail "help" and found many other > people--some who appear rather more technically literate than myself > similarly lost somewhere in the antechamber of Kafka's Castle/trying > to communicate with the Borg (HAL?).. and from various comments and my > blog and particularly private emails many many other people have > similar problems... when a problem because sufficiently common it > moves from being the victims problem to being the originators' problem > or at least it should... > > And as various other people have noted gmail is not a "free" (as in > benevolent) service... getting people to gmail--which Google has and > continues to aggressively attempt to do is part of their business > model where they take the information which folks using their mail > service gives them access to and they then sell that (at very > considerable profit) to various folks with an interest. > > Best, > > Mike > > >> McTim wrote: >>> On 2/27/12, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> > Michael Gurstein wrote: >>> > >>> >> Folks may be interested in my current experiences in the online >>> world. >>> >> >>> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/gmail-hell-day-4-dealing >>> >> -with-the-borg-or-being-evil-without-really-thinking-about-it/ >>> > >>> > Thanks a lot for documenting this experience and thereby an issue >>> > that Internet governance needs to address. >>> >>> Why does "Internet governance" need to address this?  It's a free >>> (best effort) service...OF COURSE they won't have an army of people >>> helping you with your email? >> >> In this particular case, Mike was in fact paying Google actual money >> for this service, because he wanted a bigger mailbox than what they >> offer for free, but that's not very relevant to the main point here >> as I see it. >> >>> I see no problem that needs solving here... PEBKAC, no? >> >> In my eyes, it is a problem when an essential (to a particular >> end-user) infrastructure, that the end-user relies on for important >> things, can suddenly become unavailable for days without any >> reasonably way to solve the problem. >> >> Note that "simply start using a different email address" is *not* a >> reasonable way to solve the problem, when there's no reasonable way >> to notify everyone who has the old email address. >> >> Maybe it should be recommended for everyone to use a domain name of >> their own for their email? Of course, in developing countries, a lot >> of people have an income which is so low in terms of dollars that it >> would be prohibitively expensive to use a second-level .com or >> comparitively priced domain name for this, but nothing would stop >> e.g. CCTLD operators from using their existing infrastructure to >> offer e.g. inexpensive third-level domain registrations under a >> special second-level domain under their CCTLD. >> >> Google and others could still offer to provide the essential same >> email service. People would use it by setting up an MX DNS record >> pointing to e.g. googlemail.com - but with this kind of setup, they'd >> be able to switch to a different email service provider when they >> want, for example if Google suddenly decides to stop providing their >> service for a particular email address, like they did in Mike's case. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> !DSPAM:2676,4f4baf3a25622006457889! >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed Feb 29 03:31:55 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:31:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks: Stratfor leak shows US's covert plan to prosecute Assange In-Reply-To: <4F4DD2E2.1010608@mail.ngo.za> References: <4F4DD2E2.1010608@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: <4F4DE27B.5030306@gmail.com> WikiLeaks: Stratfor leak shows US's covert plan to prosecute Assange Wednesday, February 29, 2012 Julian Assange. WikiLeaks released the statement below on February 28. * * * Confidential emails obtained from the US private intelligence firm Stratfor show that the United States government has had a secret indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for more than 12 months. Fred Burton, Stratfor's Vice-President for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security, is a former Deputy Chief of the Department of State's (DoS) counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). In early 2011, Burton revealed in internal Stratfor correspondence that a secret Grand Jury had already issued a sealed indictment for Assange: "Not for Pub --- We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect." (375123) According to Burton: "Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He'll be eating cat food forever." (1056988) A few weeks earlier, following Julian Assange's release from a London jail, where he had been remanded as a result of a Swedish prosecutor's arrest warrant, Fred Burton told SkyNews: "extradition [to the US is] more and more likely". (373862). Emails from Fred Burton reveal that the US government employs the same counterterrorism strategy against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks as against Al Qaeda: "Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track aQ [Al Qaeda]. Thank Cheney & 43 [former US President George W. Bush]. Big Brother owns his liberal terrorist arse." (1067796) Ten days after the CIA reportedly assassinated Osama bin Laden, Burton writes in an email sent to Stratfor's "Secure" mailing list that he "can get access to the materials seized from the OBL [Osama bin Laden] safe house." (1660854) Burton states: "Ferreting out [Julian Assange's] confederates is also key. Find out what other disgruntled rogues inside the tent or outside [sic]. Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki." (1056763) Along with the FBI, the Diplomatic Security Service and the Department of Defense (DoD) form a multi-agency US Government outfit seeking to criminally indict and prosecute WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. According to the Department of State, the DSS handles the investigation of all leads that involve the DoS and assists the DoD in forensic analysis of hard drives seized by the US government in its ongoing criminal investigation. Burton also says he "would pursue [c]onspiracy and [p]olitical [t]errorism charges and declassify the death of a source someone which [he] could link to Wiki" (1074383). Burton's strategy is to: "[b]ankrupt the arsehole first," Burton states, "ruin his life. Give him 7-12 yrs for conspiracy." (1057220) WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said: "For over a year now, the US Attorny General Eric Holder has been conducting a "secret" Grand Jury investigation into WikiLeaks. This neo-McCarthyist witch hunt against WikiLeaks may be Mr Holder's defining legacy. Any student of American history knows that secret justice is no justice at all. Justice must be seen to be done. Legitimate authority arises out of the informed consent of the governed, not Eric Holder's press secretary. "Secret Grand Juries with secret indictments are apparently Eric Holder's preferred method of dealing with publishers who hold his administration to account. Eric Holder has betrayed the legacy of Madison and Jefferson. He should drop the case or resign. Should he continue, however, the Obama administration may not --- Democrats and Republicans alike believe in the right to tell the truth." As early as June 2010, after the release of the Collateral Murder video but prior to the Afghan War Diaries release, the emails talk of a sealed indictment. In an email conversation between Shane Harris, a National Security journalist, and Burton, Harris is surprised that Assange was reporteded to be attending a Las Vegas Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) conference. Burton remarks: "As a foreign national, we could revoke [Julian Assange's] travel status and deport. Could also be taken into custody as a material witness. We COULD have a sealed indictment and lock him up. Depends upon how far along the military case is" (391504). Julian Assange cancelled his appearance at the IRE conference due to security concerns. In another email to Stephen Feldhaus, Stratfor legal counsel, about Ronald Kessler, a "pro-FBI journalist", Burton remarks: "I look forward to Manning and Assange facing a bajillion-thousand counts [of espionage]." (1035283) In July 2010 alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning was moved from Camp Arifjan, Kuwait to the Quantico Brig in the Military District of Washington at the request of Maj. Gen. Terry Wolff, then Commanding General of the 1st Armored Division/US Division -- Center in Iraq. Wolff requested Manning's move, the Pentagon reported, "due to a potentially lengthy pre-trial confinement because of the complexity of the charges and an ongoing investigation." Three days before Manning arrived at Quantico Brig, Burton wrote to George Friedman, Stratfor CEO and founder: "We probably asked the ASIS [Australian Secret Intelligence Service] to monitor Wiki coms and email, after the soldier from Potomac was nabbed. So, it's reasonable to assume we probably already know who has done it. The delay could be figuring out how to declassify and use the Aussie intel on Wiki... The owner [Julian Assange] is a peacenik. He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo." (402168) The GI Files: http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html Please donate: http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 6703 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 daniel at digsys.bg Wed Feb 29 04:05:06 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:05:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> On 28.02.12 17:21, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4F4CE5B8.8010604 at digsys.bg>, at 16:33:28 on Tue, 28 Feb > 2012, Daniel Kalchev writes >> In recent times, it also includes geo-location information, including >> the (very) precise location of your home wifi network. >> >> This is real funny, I once made experiment with the later: while >> traveling, configured an AP with the same SSID that I have at home. >> When asked to locate me on the map, Google "found" me at my home >> location, even if I was few hundred km away from there. > > I'm a bit surprised they are doing it on the SSID of the APs, not the > MAC address. (You didn't say if your travelling AP was the same as the > one you used to have at home). > Different device and model, although the same manufacturer so MAC address is similar. It is either poor mapping algorithm (Google also makes the weird assumption that they know where particular IP address/network is geo-located -- which with modern networking is naive assumption) or because my home SSID for a long time was available on only one location, it was marked as 'unique' (as long as my mobile version of it is not on all the time, their surveillance equipment has no chance to map it's location anyway). But all this is technology and it will improve.... Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Feb 29 04:17:21 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:17:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> References: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 28.02.12 17:21, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message <4F4CE5B8.8010604 at digsys.bg>, at 16:33:28 on Tue, 28 Feb >> 2012, Daniel Kalchev writes >> >>> In recent times, it also includes geo-location information, including >>> the (very) precise location of your home wifi network. >>> >>> This is real funny, I once made experiment with the later: while >>> traveling, configured an AP with the same SSID that I have at home. When >>> asked to locate me on the map, Google "found" me at my home location, even >>> if I was few hundred km away from there. >>> >> >> I'm a bit surprised they are doing it on the SSID of the APs, not the MAC >> address. (You didn't say if your travelling AP was the same as the one you >> used to have at home). >> >> > Different device and model, although the same manufacturer so MAC address > is similar. It is either poor mapping algorithm (Google also makes the > weird assumption that they know where particular IP address/network is > geo-located -- which with modern networking is naive assumption) or because > my home SSID for a long time was available on only one location, it was > marked as 'unique' (as long as my mobile version of it is not on all the > time, their surveillance equipment has no chance to map it's location > anyway). But all this is technology and it will improve.... > > Please don't start giving them any ideas. It's bad enough them taking my privacy, my emails, don't want them to know where I am all the time. ;) > Daniel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 04:29:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:29:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Consolidated Themes MAG Consultations [FINAL] Message-ID: Dear All, I am pleased to advise that we have completed consolidating all the contributions that came in. We hope that this will enable our current MAG members to take this forward. Kind Regards, Sala - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSIGC [MAG Consultations] Consolidation Theme 29.2.12.doc Type: application/msword Size: 66048 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 Wed Feb 29 04:36:34 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:36:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> References: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> Message-ID: In message <4F4DEA42.6080600 at digsys.bg>, at 11:05:06 on Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Daniel Kalchev writes >>> In recent times, it also includes geo-location information, >>>including the (very) precise location of your home wifi network. >>> >>> This is real funny, I once made experiment with the later: while >>>traveling, configured an AP with the same SSID that I have at home. >>>When asked to locate me on the map, Google "found" me at my home >>>location, even if I was few hundred km away from there. >> >> I'm a bit surprised they are doing it on the SSID of the APs, not the >>MAC address. (You didn't say if your travelling AP was the same as the >>one you used to have at home). > >Different device and model, although the same manufacturer so MAC >address is similar. It is either poor mapping algorithm (Google also >makes the weird assumption that they know where particular IP >address/network is geo-located -- which with modern networking is naive >assumption) or because my home SSID for a long time was available on >only one location, it was marked as 'unique' (as long as my mobile >version of it is not on all the time, their surveillance equipment has >no chance to map it's location anyway). But all this is technology and >it will improve.... Thinking this through again... they cannot know the location of your AP when travelling, unless it's been mapped - which requires capturing the SSID/MAC *and* a GPS location using crowd-sourcing techniques. (Where the streetcar is one of the crowd, albeit an infrequent visitor, and you can be one of the crowd too[1]). So what's probably happening here is that because the SSID is the same as the one you normally use, they are making an assumption you are at home. If there are other mapped wifi points within reach, it might make a different decision, because of the inconsistency of location between your AP, and all of those others. What would be interesting is finding out what a third party's laptop was told about the location, when logged in via your AP for the first time. [1] In Google Maps, it's possible to set a "default location", which it would seem updates the database corresponding to "your" SSID/MAC. I've moved across town with the same AP and my location moved too. You could perhaps try setting a new default via your travelling AP next time you are in the field, and see what happens. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Feb 29 04:45:16 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:45:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> Message-ID: at 21:17:21 on Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >Please don't start giving them any ideas. It's bad enough them taking >my privacy, my emails, don't want them to know where I am all the time. >;) But perhaps they already do. See the relevant section in this report: [disclaimer: I'm a co-author] -- 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 Feb 29 04:56:51 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:56:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > at 21:17:21 on Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > writes > >Please don't start giving them any ideas. It's bad enough them taking > >my privacy, my emails, don't want them to know where I am all the time. > >;) > > But perhaps they already do. See the relevant section in this report: > > factsheets/network-for-stalking-and-womens-aid-digital-stalking- > guideli.html> > > I love it! :) We could have put this as a theme and an excellent one it would have made too. > [disclaimer: I'm a co-author] > -- > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 05:58:21 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:58:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> Message-ID: on Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >I love it! :) We could have put this as a theme and an excellent one it >would have made too Always happy to consider being invited to explore the various aspects of this area. [advert] Training course for professionals also available: -- 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Feb 29 07:28:50 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:28:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] In-Reply-To: References: <8CEC48AA49261B9-18B8-6D8B@webmail-m102.sysops.aol.com> <8A6FC797-9800-482B-A42B-79AD4667AA0B@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <6516E29F-5EE1-4717-86F8-D096F868AB47@uzh.ch> Agreed, much better. The HR panel is on now BTW http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/index.html Chanel 11, and #FXInternet #HRC19 #APC Bill On Feb 29, 2012, at 5:39 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Agree. Much improved. > > Adam > > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> Rony, >> >> Nice rewrite :) >> >> Sala, >> >> If there's consensus on the revised language, suggest the text be posted in >> the IGC website. >> >> Robert >> -- >> >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> On 2012-02-28, at 6:48 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: >> >> Dear All -- >> >> Herewith a proposed rewrite, attempting to simplify and clarify. >> >> Each paragraph of the original draft is followed in italics by a proposed >> edited version. >> >> Best regards, Rony Koven >> >> Rights without borders – also known as human rights – have met their >> technological twin in the form of the global Internet, a technology without >> borders. >> >> The Internet has transformed the reality of human rights by creating a space >> where communications can become universally participatory and truly flow in >> all directions, regardless of frontiers, instead of the previous situation >> in which information flows were largely top to bottom, flowing from content >> creators to content consumers. >> >> The open architecture of the Internet creates a new global commons that >> facilitates and enhances many pre-existing human rights, including but not >> limited to rights of free expression, rights of information, petition, >> association and assembly, creative rights, and the right to earn a >> livelihood and contribute to the culture of society. Internet technology and >> design choices simultaneously extend human interaction in multiple >> directions regardless of borders, at a far lower cost, and on a more >> democratic basis than previously imaginable. >> >> [Previous graf unchanged, adding the word “global” before “commons.”] >> >> This powerful symbiosis between natural birthrights and the nature of the >> Internet as a rights-enhancing technology has caused discourse about the >> Internet to incorporate many lofty attributes that are further fueled by >> already being partially realized, causing (among other things) thought >> leaders regarding the Internet to sometimes be referred to as “evangelists.” >> Generally speaking, these rights-enhancing aspects have caused the Internet >> to reach the loftiest planes of human hope, joining democracy and religion >> at the level of promising “a more abundant life” for all, without the >> prominent downsides often associated with some actual implementations of >> government and religion. >> >> [Drop the previous graf. Religion should be left out of this.] >> >> The most powerful question to ask concerning human rights on the Internet is >> not where these rights arise from or how they may be further enforced in >> courts, but where any claimed “right” to interfere with the freedom of the >> Internet arises from. How can such a right of interference with freedom of >> expression be legitimately theorized, asserted and enforced? Because the >> very nature of the Internet is to facilitate free expression, and given that >> the Internet as a whole is both owner-less and international, how can any >> single business, national government, or person obtain and enforce a right >> to interfere with the international freedom of the Internet? Any lack of >> clarity thought to exist by some regarding where human rights “come from” >> simply pales in comparison to the lack of clarity of any asserted right to >> interfere with the freedom of others on the Internet. Any hypothetical >> “right to interfere” with inherent human rights of freedom of expression is >> far more difficult to justify and explain than upholding the natural human >> urge for self-expression and self-determination as a right. Thus, absent >> highly exceptional circumstances, in a contest between interference and free >> expression, free expression always has the better case, regardless of >> whether free expression is thought of as an enforceable legal right or not. >> >> By its very nature, the Internet makes possible the facilitation of >> universal free expression. Given that the Internet is both ownerless and >> borderless, no single business, national government, or person has a right >> to interfere with the worldwide freedom of the Internet. Any limit to the >> natural human right of freedom of expression has become far more difficult >> to justify and explain. Except in extraordinary circumstances that should be >> as narrowly defined as possible, restrictions to freedom of expression on >> and off line now seem even more illegitimate than ever. >> >> Access to the full benefits and promise of the Internet can be interfered >> with or impeded at numerous levels and by numerous actors, including >> businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web designers, >> administrators. Arguably, businesses are in the position to make more >> choices that actually or potentially impair or impede human rights on the >> Internet than government. Some “governmental” interference with the Internet >> is driven by business concern lobbying, such that much “governmental” >> interference can be attributed to businesses. Regardless of the relative >> amounts of responsibility one may assess to each, it is extremely clear that >> both governments and businesses can and are acting in ways that interfere >> with the Internet, either by failing to fully understand the Internet, or by >> pursuing narrow interests over the public interest as a whole. Any such >> government or business that acts to impair or impede the global freedom of >> the Internet should not be heard to claim that they “have the Internet” (in >> the case of a nation that filters or otherwise interferes) or that they >> “support the Internet” (in the case of a business acting in fact to impede >> access to the full Internet, or censor content, etc.) >> >> The Internet can be interfered with or impeded at numerous levels and by >> many actors, including businesses, governments, individuals, engineers, web >> designers, administrators. Commercial interests are often better able to >> impair or impede human rights on the Internet than governments. Some >> ostensibly governmental interferences with the Internet are driven by >> business lobbying. In other cases, businesses may mask the reality that they >> are in fact imposing limits for political reasons dictated by governments. >> Regardless of their relative responsibilities, both governments and >> businesses can and have acted in ways that interfere with the Internet, >> either out of failure to understand its nature and technology or in pursuit >> of narrow interests. Those who interfere with global or local Internet >> freedom should not be allowed to claim that they act in its support. >> >> Although Internet companies are obliged to abide by national legal rules of >> host countries, they are even more obliged to follow global human rights >> laws like freedom of expression than those national laws. Claims that >> domestic laws require business cooperation with censorship, etc. should be >> met with the assertion of higher laws and norms than those of a single >> country. >> >> Although Internet companies must follow the laws of host countries, they are >> also obliged to respect universal human rights, notably freedom of >> expression. Claims that domestic laws require businesses to cooperate with >> censorship or other restrictions should be countered by invoking the >> obligations of national governments to honor the universal human rights >> texts that bind them. >> >> In the general context of market freedom, the development of new >> technologies will always precede the question of the extent of their >> regulation. Yet, as human activity in the technology expands, some form of >> regulation is inevitable, just as it is impossible to imagine cities without >> any regulation, even though lack of regulation is possible in the >> countryside or wilderness. However, the pace of innovation and expansion on >> the Internet guarantees that no regulator can sufficiently keep pace. This >> requires deep commitment to human rights on the part of engineers and others >> who are creating the Internet in real time. >> >> The pace of development of contemporary communications technology in a >> globalized free market seems bound to continue to outstrip the ability of >> regulators to keep up. Some regulation seems inevitable, given the >> complexity of modern societies. It will inevitably lag behind the pace of >> innovation and expansion of the Internet. This requires deep commitment to >> and understanding of human rights by the systems designers who modify the >> Internet environment in real time. >> >> The pre-existing duty of all nations to support the diffusion of education >> concerning human rights takes on a special urgency and importance in the >> context of the Internet, because important structural and design decisions >> regarding the Internet will always continue to be made by Internet engineers >> and administrators at a speed and at a point in time where it is impossible >> for detailed guidance or best practices to exist. In direct effect, the >> “governance” of the Internet, in significant part, takes place in real time >> and in diverse places, often by engineers and programmers making design >> decisions, making a decentralized awareness and knowledge of human rights >> norms by people working on the Internet especially critical to preventing >> serious human rights issues from emerging. Knowledge about human rights, >> like the Internet itself, is a form of power that not only can be >> decentralized, but must be decentralized, given the diffuse points of >> potential impact on rights on the Internet, and the lack of any centralized >> ownership or control that can legitimately affect the whole. >> >> The obligation of all governments to promote knowledge of human rights has >> taken on new urgency in the Internet era because basic structural and design >> decisions about cyberspace will continue to be made by Internet engineers >> and administrators at a speed that defies the possibilities of detailed >> policy guidance or adoption of best practice norms. Understanding of human >> rights must therefore be generalized so as to avert their inadvertent >> compromise. >> >> Therefore, the IGC declares that the Internet is, and by rights ought to be, >> a place for the full expression of human freedoms and equality, the IGC >> condemns violations of human rights on the Internet and wherever else they >> may occur, and the IGC calls upon the United Nations and all people to >> support the utmost diffusion of education about human rights so that >> developers, engineers, administrators and users of the Internet can maximize >> the value of the Internet as an enhancement of the human experience for all >> people, making ever more real the human flourishing that is both the reality >> and the promise of the Internet, and doing so “without regard to frontiers.” >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus of the Internet Governance Forum therefore >> declares that the Internet is, and by right ought to be, a place for the >> full expression of human freedoms and equality. The IGC condemns violations >> of human rights both on the Internet and elsewhere. The IGC calls upon the >> United Nations and all people to support the widest spread of human rights >> education so that those who continue to develop and use the Internet may >> maximize its ability to enhance the human experience and to turn into >> reality the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to do so >> “through any media and regardless of frontiers.” >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> To: Adam Peake ; McTim ; Izumi AIZU >> >> Cc: Paul Lehto ; governance >> >> Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 8:00 pm >> Subject: [governance] Fwd: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from >> IGC???] >> >> Dear All, >> >> From this email, you will see that the Statement was put up for 48 hour >> period, see email below. >> >> Sala >> >> However, to factor in your concerns, I have made a final call for >> consensus. >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:28 AM >> Subject: Re: UN Human Rights Council [Possible Statement from IGC???] >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Shahzad Ahmad >> Cc: Robert Guerra >> >> >> Thank you Paul for responding to the call to initiate a Draft which is no >> easy feat especially trying to weave a complex topic that has numerous >> issues to a cohesive succint statement. >> >> The Statement is now up on the Statement Workspace and open to comments and >> contributions. Please note that we would like to release this and wrap this >> up in time by at least the 29th February, 2012. >> >> Please visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/34 >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I had asked the IGC whether people were interested in putting a statement. >>> If we are, then this is a great time to initiate a draft so we can call for >>> contributions and get feedback and put to the list for 48 hours through the >>> statement workspace which can then be sent on. We would like to send a >>> Statement by the 29th February, 2012. >>> >>> The 19th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council will take place >>> between 27th February till 23rd March, 2012 see: >>> http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session19/Pages/19RegularSession.aspx >>> >>> Excerpt from Joy Liddicoat's email: >>> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s annual >>> report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The session >>> will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the government of >>> Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in the panel >>> event. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >>>>> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >>>>> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are >>>>> making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite >>>>> www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports >>>>> and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >>>>> >>>>> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >>>>> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >>>>> possible. >>>>> >>> >>> Given the numerous contributions and acclamations in relation to Human >>> Rights on the list through the various threads, we should consider putting >>> in a Statement. Any volunteers to initiate a draft? >>> >>> Another option is for people to concentrate on various aspects of human >>> rights:- >>> >>> privacy >>> security >>> freedom of expression >>> intellectual property >>> >>> or not but feel free to add your thoughts and contributions. >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The Swedish Government was also responsible for getting it onto the >>>> Agenda: >>>> >>>> >>>> See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/15079/a/176945?setEnableCookies=true >>>> >>>> >>>> Swedish success in Geneva for freedom of expression on the Internet >>>> >>>> On Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council adopted by consensus a decision >>>> to arrange a panel discussion on freedom of expression on the Internet at >>>> its next session in March 2012. The decision was adopted on the initiative >>>> of Sweden, with the support of over fifty states from throughout the world. >>>> This will be the first time that the Council discusses the issue of freedom >>>> of expression on the Internet. >>>> "This is a major success for Sweden, which has pushed for the human >>>> rights issue to apply online as well as offline", says Carl Bildt, Minister >>>> for Foreign Affairs. >>>> Earlier this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and >>>> protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, >>>> presented a report on freedom of expression on the Internet. At the UN Human >>>> Rights Council's session in June, Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt >>>> gave a speech in support of several of the conclusions presented in La Rue's >>>> report. Sweden's address won the support of a number of influential >>>> countries, including India, Brazil and South Africa. >>>> This is the background to how, at its 18th session which will conclude >>>> today, the Council was able to decide to invite a panel of experts and >>>> representatives of governments, the UN system, the business sector and civil >>>> society to discuss the issue. This means that the issue of freedom of >>>> expression on the Internet will be placed on the agenda of the UN Human >>>> Rights Council for the first time. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> We can also put together a Statement before the 29th February, 2012 and >>>>> use the link that Joy sent us to draw resources from. I also note that there >>>>> has been alot of discussions around this theme specifically over the years. >>>>> >>>>> We can capture these thoughts in a statement. Any volunteers to put >>>>> together a first draft for others to comment. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Shahzad Ahmad >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Robert, >>>>>> >>>>>> What exactly is the argument against human rights as an IGF theme? >>>>>> Kindly do send a bit of background from the MAG consultation, if possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes & regards >>>>>> Shahzad >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 19, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Robert Guerra >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Brett, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In regards to recommendation #3 - that "The Internet Governance Forum >>>>>>> should be encouraged to make human rights its central theme", well, that was >>>>>>> proposed at the open IGF MAG meeting that took place in Geneva this past >>>>>>> week. Unfortunately, there was a lack of consensus on the proposal and it >>>>>>> was not accepted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As an alternative, many of the Civil Society participants in the >>>>>>> meeting have suggested that Human Rights be one of the cross cutting themes >>>>>>> at the 2012 IGF. That alternative >>>>>>> is still being discussed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Between now and the next open consultation in May a coordinated >>>>>>> effort is needed to make sure the existing MAG keeps that option open. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> R. Guerra >>>>>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >>>>>>> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2012-02-19, at 12:06 PM, Brett Solomon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks Joy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Access put in a submission to the Human Rights Council ahead of the >>>>>>>> High Level Panel on the Right to Freedom of Expression on the Internet (Feb >>>>>>>> 29). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We decided to focus on digital security as a precursor for the >>>>>>>> realization of Article 19 online, because without digital security, civil >>>>>>>> society groups and human rights defenders in particular cannot act with >>>>>>>> confidence, express their opinions safely or gain online access to the >>>>>>>> broader constellation of human rights. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For those who are interested, our brief submission and >>>>>>>> recommendations can be found here: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/access-tells-the-human-rights-council-to-protect-digital-rights >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It'd be good to know who else is planning to be in Geneva for the >>>>>>>> actual Panel. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Brett >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Brett Solomon >>>>>>>> Executive Director | Access >>>>>>>> accessnow.org | rightscon.org >>>>>>>> +1 917 969 6077 | skype: brettsolomon | @accessnow >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is a heads up about a forthcoming event at the UN Human Rights >>>>>>>> Council (and apologies for any double ups in list postings). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Following on from the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression’s >>>>>>>> annual report in 2011, an expert panel is being held during HRC 19. The >>>>>>>> session will take place on Wed 29 Feb and is being organised by the >>>>>>>> government of Sweden and OHCHR. APC will be attending and participating in >>>>>>>> the panel event. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We would like to reach out to others to find out who else might be >>>>>>>> planning on attending or making submissions (which are due Monday 13 Feb) >>>>>>>> and, if so, how we might be able to collaborate or support these. If you are >>>>>>>> making submissions or statements, we would encourage you to draw on and cite >>>>>>>> www.giswatch.org released in December 2011 which includes 55 country reports >>>>>>>> and other material as well as an introduction from Frank La Rue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you are planning other activities, campaigns or events around the >>>>>>>> panel, please do let us know so that we can support or collaborate if >>>>>>>> possible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Joy Liddicoat >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Project Coordinator >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internet Rights are Human Rights >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> www.apc.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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> >>>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 07:29:12 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:29:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> References: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> Message-ID: On 29 February 2012 05:05, Daniel Kalchev wrote: .... > But all this is technology and it will improve.... > For better, or for [much] worse? Deirdre -- “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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Feb 29 08:09:53 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 01:09:53 +1200 Subject: [governance] Statement of CSIGC on Human Rights and the Internet [FINAL] Message-ID: Dear All, Given the limited time frame, I have had to make a call on "rough consensus". Grateful if someone at the meeting in Geneva can this Statement to the appropriate persons etc. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Statement of CSIGC on Human Rights and the Internet.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 18754 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 Feb 29 08:18:54 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 01:18:54 +1200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights and the Internet [Final Call for Consensus] In-Reply-To: References: <4F4D57FE.3010700@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Thanks everyone. This is to advise that due I have the sent the Statement with Rony's edits. Thank you Paul and Rony for the heavy lifting. Thank you also to all those that have contributed in the last consultations. Visit the Statement workspace to see the Final Version that went out. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > We would like to close the comments period. Let us have your quick > thoughts. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Tracey Naughton < > tracey at traceynaughton.com> wrote: > >> yes >> >> Tracey >> >> Tracey Naughton >> tracey at traceynaughton.com >> S 37. 04.260 >> E 144.12.910 >> 22 Adams Street >> Castlemaine 3450 >> Australia >> >> land line: +613 54706853 >> mobile: +61 (0)413 019707 >> skype: tnaughton9999 >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29/02/2012, at 9:41 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >> >> Yes, release the document. >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> >>> >>> On 2/28/2012 1:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> A Call for Volunteers to initiate a draft statement was made and Paul >>> Lehto responded. The first draft was put to the IGC through email and the >>> Statement Workspace for comments and contributions. We thank Paul and all >>> those that contributed. >>> >>> The intention was to finalise our position to enable us to release a >>> Statement by the 29th February, 2012 as the United Nations Human Rights >>> Council is set to convene. >>> >>> Whilst we have missed the 13th February, 2012 deadline for >>> Submissions, they can still factor in our Statement in the Panel Papers so >>> it is important that we get this out post haste. I am mindful that at the >>> time I write this email, it is *Tuesday, 28 February 2012, 19:20:54* * >>> CET* >>> >>> You can read the edited Statement on "Human Rights and the Internet" >>> via the Statement Workspace which is >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/56 >>> >>> May we have your views whether you agree for this Statement to be >>> released to the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday 29 February, 2012? >>> >>> Please vote:- >>> >>> 1. Yes >>> 2. No >>> 3. Unsure; >>> 4. Other [Add comments] >>> >>> >>> -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 <%2B679%20998%202851> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 08:28:44 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 01:28:44 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Statement of CSIGC on Human Rights and the Internet [FINAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is to advise that after being given the email address of Ms Nomura, I have since sent the Statement. Sala On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Given the limited time frame, I have had to make a call on "rough > consensus". Grateful if someone at the meeting in Geneva can this Statement > to the appropriate persons etc. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 08:39:36 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 01:39:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Statement of CSIGC on Human Rights and the Internet [FINAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You can also read the Statement in the Workspace, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/58 On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > This is to advise that after being given the email address of Ms Nomura, I > have since sent the Statement. > > Sala > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Given the limited time frame, I have had to make a call on "rough >> consensus". Grateful if someone at the meeting in Geneva can this Statement >> to the appropriate persons etc. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 08:55:41 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 13:55:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is this for real? In-Reply-To: References: <1AB5C29E-4E14-4AE0-860B-0FC40A7E4828@privaterra.org> <4F4CE5B8.8010604@digsys.bg> <4F4DEA42.6080600@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <67PH82Dd5iTPFAql@internetpolicyagency.com> at 08:29:12 on Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Deirdre Williams writes > But all this is technology and it will improve.... > >For better, or for [much] worse It should make it better, because the law's catching up fast and service providers need to show they are complying. For example, the current need for websites in EU to ask for "proper permission" to install cookies. Not that it's happening much, but it's a work in progress. Similarly, more recent EU proposals for a "right to be forgotten" and the formal removal of ambiguity over whether things like IP and email addresses are 'personal data' [they are] will mean more attention will be focussed on the consumer/citizen's rights. And perhaps I'm unusual in thinking that Facebook's Timeline is a good thing, because it shows the data subjects (as well as the rest of the world) a much more comprehensive view of the information they've revealed - and a better tool to edit/censor what other subscribers can see (even if there's sometimes some doubt about whether it gets completely deleted at the Facebook end). -- 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 Feb 29 11:18:16 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:18:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3FAA017C9B294353BC3AF4FB8E3274EC@UserVAIO> (Coming in late, this was caught up in my gmail issues... I'ld like to strongly agree with Ginger in this. For me Remote Participation is not a technical issue but rather has to do with policy. A commitment to "RP" has a lot of implications of which the technical and organizational are only part (and even then may be the least significant). RP implies that the processes of discussion are structured and designed -- including their planning, set-up, execution and follow-on -- in such a way that those who are participating remotely are equally enabled and empowered as those who are participating f2f. Achieving this is a huge undertaking to my mind but one worth pursuing both at the operational and at the policy level. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:47 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation Adam said: I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and exciting. I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations. If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral part of the IGF meeting process. Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different approach, with points I have made above. Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so I have not done so. Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote participation! Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo....From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May 2012: Bilateral Diplomacy, Diplomacy of Small States, and E-diplomacy. Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake wrote: Comment below: On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much easier > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on the > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE > PARTICIPATION > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet Governance > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last five > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind the > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We have seen how > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with extraordinary > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment that enables the > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and > ultimately access. > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN DESA > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote Participation. > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with remote > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to make > remote participation a reality. > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is a > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the > MAG meeting this month - February 2012 - which was opened to observers. > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral part > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to sustain > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote participation. > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to address > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be > addressed[1]. > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to ensure > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not just > the Main Sessions. > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were made available through the IGF Website." I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) Thanks, Adam > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society Coordinator > Vittorio Bertola. > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with the > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, (the > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one > function. > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work > together to bring them about: > > . Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an equal > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > . Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth to > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > . Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation and > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, > facilitators and chairs. > > . Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage through > RP that will be available. > > .Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators (who > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for > interactions between the meeting's physical participants/current speaker, > the Chair and the remote participants). > > . Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > . Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > . Providing multiple methods - video, voice and text channel, as well as > real-time transcription and video streaming - of coverage of the meeting > > . Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP. > > . Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to ensure > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to ensure > improved remote participation processes. > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face participation, > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central role in > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote > participation. > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > countries could access the IGF. > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture where > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested methodology. > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to sustain > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also > include the following:- > > . Outreach. > > . Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > . Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > . Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators whilst > noting the limitations. > > . Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > . Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and national, > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines and > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > Ends > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: >> >> Dear Sala, >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching up >> with reading the messages. >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the >> discussions today? >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >> De >> >> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Deirdre, >>> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society component >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >>> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t !DSPAM:2676,4f461b5125626162813518! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 14:15:40 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 07:15:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <3FAA017C9B294353BC3AF4FB8E3274EC@UserVAIO> References: <3FAA017C9B294353BC3AF4FB8E3274EC@UserVAIO> Message-ID: The Statement is available via http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 Michael your concerns are factored in the Statement, see Paragraph [4]. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:18 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > ** > > (Coming in late, this was caught up in my gmail issues... > > I'ld like to strongly agree with Ginger in this. For me Remote > Participation is not a technical issue but rather has to do with policy. A > commitment to "RP" has a lot of implications of which the technical and > organizational are only part (and even then may be the least significant). > RP implies that the processes of discussion are structured and designed -- > including their planning, set-up, execution and follow-on -- in such a way > that those who are participating remotely are equally enabled and empowered > as those who are participating f2f. > > Achieving this is a huge undertaking to my mind but one worth pursuing > both at the operational and at the policy level. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Ginger Paque > *Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:47 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Remote Participation > > Adam said: > > I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the > transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the > time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people > they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about > them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) > > I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and > exciting. > > I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and > illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during > last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. > Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and > more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they > boil down to just one: > > RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. > > The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of a > remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote > participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an > automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion > of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the > presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one > of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have > 'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation > and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers > and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of > volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the > privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in > the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might ask > the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. > > If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might > include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and > process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations. > > If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG > catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the > IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever > appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. > > I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be > institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral > part of the IGF meeting process. > > Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been > started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the > different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one > frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress > the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to > energize forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better > strategy and focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made > comments on the existing statement, because I would re-write it completely, > with a different approach, with points I have made above. > > Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have > the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so > I have not done so. > > Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote > participation! > > Ginger > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > *The latest from Diplo....*From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most > exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May 2012: > *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and *E-diplomacy*. > Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses** > > > > On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Comment below: >> >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much >> easier >> > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, >> > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. >> > >> > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on >> the >> > Statement Workspace as well: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE >> > PARTICIPATION >> > >> > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet >> Governance >> > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last >> five >> > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind the >> > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We have seen >> how >> > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with >> extraordinary >> > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment that enables >> the >> > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and >> > ultimately access. >> > >> > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN >> DESA >> > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote >> Participation. >> > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote >> > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with >> remote >> > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to make >> > remote participation a reality. >> > >> > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is a >> > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >> > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >> > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and >> the >> > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >> > >> > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >> part >> > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to >> sustain >> > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >> participation. >> > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to >> address >> > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be >> > addressed[1]. >> > >> > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >> ensure >> > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not >> just >> > the Main Sessions. >> > >> >> from the Nairobi chair's summary document: >> >> "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from >> the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop >> meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time >> transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were >> made available through the IGF Website." >> >> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from >> > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was >> > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society >> Coordinator >> > Vittorio Bertola. >> > >> > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >> with the >> > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, >> (the >> > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively >> > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. >> > >> > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >> contacting >> > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one >> > function. >> > >> > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the >> > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >> work >> > together to bring them about: >> > >> > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants >> > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >> equal >> > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >> > >> > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >> bandwidth to >> > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to >> > enable greater interactions from offline participants. >> > >> > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >> and >> > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, >> > facilitators and chairs. >> > >> > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, >> > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >> through >> > RP that will be available. >> > >> > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators >> (who >> > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for >> > interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current >> speaker, >> > the Chair and the remote participants). >> > >> > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >> participants >> > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically >> present >> > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >> > >> > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >> > participants to interact and engage in meetings. >> > >> > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as well >> as >> > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the meeting >> > >> > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >> > presentations access through RP. >> > >> > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >> > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >> that >> > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >> ensure >> > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to >> ensure >> > improved remote participation processes. >> > >> > Because only limited funds are available for face- to >> -face participation, >> > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all >> > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who >> wish >> > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central >> role in >> > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote >> > participation. >> > >> > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >> private >> > sector in enhancing remote participation. >> > >> > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >> outcomes to >> > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. >> > >> > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >> > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >> > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >> > countries could access the IGF. >> > >> > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >> where >> > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >> methodology. >> > >> > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >> > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >> > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a >> > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >> > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >> sustain >> > the volume of traffic from remote participation. >> > >> > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also >> > include the following:- >> > >> > · Outreach. >> > >> > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >> > >> > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before >> the >> > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. >> > >> > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators >> whilst >> > noting the limitations. >> > >> > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and >> governments >> > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. >> > >> > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and >> national, >> > sub regional and regional IGFs. >> > >> > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines >> and >> > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants >> > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. >> > >> > Ends >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > >> > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Dear Sala, >> >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching up >> >> with reading the messages. >> >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >> >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from >> >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the >> >> discussions today? >> >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >> >> De >> >> >> >> >> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Dear Deirdre, >> >>> >> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society >> component >> >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >> >>> >> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >> >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be >> >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >> >>> >> >>> Kind Regards, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>> >> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 <%2B679%20998%202851> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > >> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > 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 >> >> > !DSPAM:2676,4f461b5125626162813518! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 14:41:22 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:41:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3525EE28480D4D2DB2FA3CFB8ECC6E2D@UserVAIO> Thanks Sala, this looks like a good and comprehensive statement (and my apologies for not being able, because of my own technical issues, to keep up with the flow of discussion on this important subject. M -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Ginger Paque; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation The Statement is available via http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 Michael your concerns are factored in the Statement, see Paragraph [4]. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:18 AM, michael gurstein wrote: (Coming in late, this was caught up in my gmail issues... I'ld like to strongly agree with Ginger in this. For me Remote Participation is not a technical issue but rather has to do with policy. A commitment to "RP" has a lot of implications of which the technical and organizational are only part (and even then may be the least significant). RP implies that the processes of discussion are structured and designed -- including their planning, set-up, execution and follow-on -- in such a way that those who are participating remotely are equally enabled and empowered as those who are participating f2f. Achieving this is a huge undertaking to my mind but one worth pursuing both at the operational and at the policy level. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Ginger Paque Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:47 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation Adam said: I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important and exciting. I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they boil down to just one: RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have 'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations. If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral part of the IGF meeting process. Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to energize forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better strategy and focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made comments on the existing statement, because I would re-write it completely, with a different approach, with points I have made above. Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so I have not done so. Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote participation! Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig The latest from Diplo....From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May 2012: Bilateral Diplomacy, Diplomacy of Small States, and E-diplomacy. Apply now to reserve your place: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake wrote: Comment below: On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much easier > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. > > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on the > Statement Workspace as well: > > > > > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE > PARTICIPATION > > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet Governance > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last five > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind the > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We have seen how > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with extraordinary > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment that enables the > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and > ultimately access. > > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN DESA > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote Participation. > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with remote > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to make > remote participation a reality. > > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is a > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and the > MAG meeting this month - February 2012 - which was opened to observers. > > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral part > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to sustain > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote participation. > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to address > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be > addressed[1]. > > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to ensure > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not just > the Main Sessions. > from the Nairobi chair's summary document: "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were made available through the IGF Website." I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) Thanks, Adam > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society Coordinator > Vittorio Bertola. > > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred with the > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, (the > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. > > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in contacting > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one > function. > > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and work > together to bring them about: > > . Ensuring equal participation between online and offline participants > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an equal > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. > > . Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate bandwidth to > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to > enable greater interactions from offline participants. > > . Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation and > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, > facilitators and chairs. > > . Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all meetings, > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage through > RP that will be available. > > .Always assigning exclusive remote participation coordinator/moderators (who > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for > interactions between the meeting's physical participants/current speaker, > the Chair and the remote participants). > > . Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote participants > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically present > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. > > . Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote > participants to interact and engage in meetings. > > . Providing multiple methods - video, voice and text channel, as well as > real-time transcription and video streaming - of coverage of the meeting > > . Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive > presentations access through RP. > > . Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society that > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to ensure > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to ensure > improved remote participation processes. > > Because only limited funds are available for face- to -face participation, > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and who wish > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central role in > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote > participation. > > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and private > sector in enhancing remote participation. > > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible outcomes to > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. > > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these > countries could access the IGF. > > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture where > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested methodology. > > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to sustain > the volume of traffic from remote participation. > > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also > include the following:- > > . Outreach. > > . Mapping local and regional stakeholders; > > . Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before the > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. > > . Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators whilst > noting the limitations. > > . Identifying how the private sector, civil society and governments > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. > > . Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and national, > sub regional and regional IGFs. > > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines and > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 participants > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. > > Ends > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: >> >> Dear Sala, >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching up >> with reading the messages. >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the >> discussions today? >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >> De >> >> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear Deirdre, >>> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society component >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >>> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also be >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t !DSPAM:2676,4f461b5125626162813518! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Feb 29 14:50:50 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 07:50:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation In-Reply-To: <3525EE28480D4D2DB2FA3CFB8ECC6E2D@UserVAIO> References: <3525EE28480D4D2DB2FA3CFB8ECC6E2D@UserVAIO> Message-ID: No worries Michael. You raised an important point. Warm Regards, Sala On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:41 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > ** > Thanks Sala, this looks like a good and comprehensive statement (and my > apologies for not being able, because of my own technical issues, to keep > up with the flow of discussion on this important subject. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [mailto: > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:16 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > *Cc:* Ginger Paque; Adam Peake > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Remote Participation > > The Statement is available via > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/47 > > Michael your concerns are factored in the Statement, see Paragraph [4]. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:18 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> ** >> >> (Coming in late, this was caught up in my gmail issues... >> >> I'ld like to strongly agree with Ginger in this. For me Remote >> Participation is not a technical issue but rather has to do with policy. A >> commitment to "RP" has a lot of implications of which the technical and >> organizational are only part (and even then may be the least significant). >> RP implies that the processes of discussion are structured and designed -- >> including their planning, set-up, execution and follow-on -- in such a way >> that those who are participating remotely are equally enabled and empowered >> as those who are participating f2f. >> >> Achieving this is a huge undertaking to my mind but one worth pursuing >> both at the operational and at the policy level. >> >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Ginger Paque >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:47 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Remote Participation >> >> Adam said: >> >> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >> >> I think that this full discussion and support for RP is very important >> and exciting. >> >> I think that using the occasion of the recent meetings as an example and >> illustration is a mistake. I agree with Adam that the tech glitches during >> last week's meetings should not even be addressed--these are obvious. >> Placing emphasis on tech details draws attention from the more valid, and >> more important principles. I know I am repeating myself, but I think they >> boil down to just one: >> >> RP must be institutionalized in meeting processes. >> >> The only serious problem I see with last week's meetings was the lack of >> a remote moderator and clear processes. If RP -- and I mean remote >> participation and remote engagement, not remote observation -- were an >> automatic, standard part of meeting strategies and processes, the inclusion >> of an onsite remote moderator would have been a given, as much as the >> presence of the traditional chair and moderator. I dare to say that if one >> of the members of the RPWG had been at the meetings, they might have >> 'requested' to be 'allowed' to act as remote moderator. Remote moderation >> and remote participation should not depend on collaboration of volunteers >> and serendipity. Implementation of RP may always need the collaboration of >> volunteers, and the RPWG exists as a volunteer organization, seeking the >> privilege of collaborating, but the planning process should originate in >> the IGF structure itself, not in the action of volunteers. >> >> If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might >> ask the RPWG for collaboration, and issue a call for volunteers. >> >> If RP were institutionalized in the IGF process, the Secretariat might >> include a RPWG (or other mechanism) liaison for strategy, planning and >> process and instead of an endless series of ad hoc situations. >> >> If RP were institutionalized, Remote Hubs -- an innovation of the RPWG >> catalysed by Marilia's energy and organization -- would become part of the >> IGF process, not the RPWG process, would include remote hubs whenever >> appropriate and would include support for regional IGFs. >> >> I would prefer to see a strong, clear, short statement asking that RP be >> institutionalised (maybe that is not the appropriate word) as an integral >> part of the IGF meeting process. >> >> Establishing principles and guidelines is separate process which has been >> started, and should be coordinated to take advantage of, and include the >> different input. It should not be done in a hurry, in response to one >> frustrating meeting. Nor should one frustrating meeting opaque the progress >> the IGF has made toward inclusive RP. We should use this meeting to >> energize forward progress in an orderly manner. Can we form a better >> strategy and focus for productive results? I think so. I have not made >> comments on the existing statement, because I would re-write it completely, >> with a different approach, with points I have made above. >> >> Is it proper/possible for me to propose an alternate text? I do not have >> the sense that there is consensus for the posts I have made previously, so >> I have not done so. >> >> Anyway, again, my 2 cents. Cheers for the energy around remote >> participation! >> >> Ginger >> >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> Diplo Foundation >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> *The latest from Diplo....*From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the >> most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May >> 2012: *Bilateral Diplomacy*, *Diplomacy of Small States*, and * >> E-diplomacy*. Apply now to reserve your place: >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses** >> >> >> >> On 23 February 2012 05:13, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Comment below: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> > Dear All, >>> > >>> > Firstly thank you Deirdre for copying it onto word and making it much >>> easier >>> > to incorporate the new feedback that we received from Schombe, Jovan, >>> > Anriette, Jeremy, Roland, Mariela etc. >>> > >>> > Whilst I am copying the text onto this email, I will also place it on >>> the >>> > Statement Workspace as well: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > STATEMENT BY THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS ON REMOTE >>> > PARTICIPATION >>> > >>> > We would like to acknowledge the excellent work that the Internet >>> Governance >>> > Forum Remote Participation Working Group have been doing over the last >>> five >>> > years. We appreciate the numerous hours of sacrifice and work behind >>> the >>> > scenes to build remote participation to what it is today. We have >>> seen how >>> > whilst Technology is important, that it goes hand in hand with >>> extraordinary >>> > levels of sacrifice and commitment. It is this commitment that >>> enables the >>> > spirit of the IGF which is in sharing, dialogue, collaboration and >>> > ultimately access. >>> > >>> > We are fortunate that the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and UN >>> DESA >>> > are open .and committed to continued improvements to Remote >>> Participation. >>> > Each year the IGF RPWG commences its operations with training of remote >>> > moderators many weeks ahead of the meeting, where they discuss with >>> remote >>> > hubs and encourage participation and liaise with the Secretariat to >>> make >>> > remote participation a reality. >>> > >>> > We would like to reiterate and underscore that remote participation is >>> a >>> > crucial part of organizing the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and we >>> > appreciate the effort to provide remote participation for the Open >>> > Consultation, the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) meetings, and >>> the >>> > MAG meeting this month – February 2012 – which was opened to observers. >>> > >>> > The IGC believes that Remote Participation (RP) should be an integral >>> part >>> > of Internet Governance and IGF Policy Processes. It is impossible to >>> sustain >>> > an inclusive global policy process without effective remote >>> participation. >>> > We would like to explore how we can assist in working together to >>> address >>> > the issues raised in 2008 by various stakeholders that have yet to be >>> > addressed[1]. >>> > >>> > The MAG and IGF Secretariats should start working with the host to >>> ensure >>> > that real time transcriptions are available for all sessions and not >>> just >>> > the Main Sessions. >>> > >>> >>> from the Nairobi chair's summary document: >>> >>> "The entire meeting was Webcast, with video streaming provided from >>> the main session room and audio streaming provided from all workshop >>> meeting rooms. All the main sessions and workshops had real time >>> transcription. The text transcripts and video of all meetings were >>> made available through the IGF Website." >>> >>> I think it's petty to complain about technical problems with the >>> transcripts etc from the MAG meeting, bad connections happen all the >>> time (and if MAG members can't work out how to tell a group of people >>> they are having problems with a connection it perhaps says more about >>> them than it does about the secretariat/moderators.) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> > We would like to commend the excellent work of the technical team from >>> > Politecnico di Torino, (The Polytechnic University of Turin) which was >>> > originally brought by our colleague and former IGC Civil Society >>> Coordinator >>> > Vittorio Bertola. >>> > >>> > However, we would like to point out some difficulties that occurred >>> with the >>> > system during the open MAG meeting. On the third day, morning session, >>> (the >>> > second day of the open MAG meeting), remote observers were effectively >>> > excluded because they had no access to live transcript. >>> > >>> > Also MAG members trying to participate online had difficulty in >>> contacting >>> > moderators, partly because the moderators were serving more than one >>> > function. >>> > >>> > We strongly urge MAG and IGF Secretariats and ourselves to consider the >>> > following for the future IGF organizing work and the IGF itself, and >>> work >>> > together to bring them about: >>> > >>> > · Ensuring equal participation between online and offline >>> participants >>> > through planning meetings to give online and offline participants an >>> equal >>> > opportunity to participate and contribute to meetings. >>> > >>> > · Ensuring that there is sufficient capacity and appropriate >>> bandwidth to >>> > sustain remote participation by liaising with hosts well in advance to >>> > enable greater interactions from offline participants. >>> > >>> > · Preparing a clear comprehensive guideline for remote participation >>> and >>> > its moderation and post session or meeting reporting for meeting hosts, >>> > facilitators and chairs. >>> > >>> > · Clearly advertising opportunities for RP in advance of all >>> meetings, >>> > with clear guidance for participants on the opportunities to engage >>> through >>> > RP that will be available. >>> > >>> > ·Always assigning exclusive remote participation >>> coordinator/moderators (who >>> > do not have other jobs at the same time, and are responsible for >>> > interactions between the meeting’s physical participants/current >>> speaker, >>> > the Chair and the remote participants). >>> > >>> > · Establishing a clear procedure that would encourage remote >>> participants >>> > to intervene. Such a system is desirable both for those physically >>> present >>> > in Geneva and those observing the meeting remotely. >>> > >>> > · Providing as much interactivity as possible by giving remote >>> > participants to interact and engage in meetings. >>> > >>> > · Providing multiple methods – video, voice and text channel, as >>> well as >>> > real-time transcription and video streaming – of coverage of the >>> meeting >>> > >>> > · Enabling the meeting and remote participation through interactive >>> > presentations access through RP. >>> > >>> > · Creating a select Task force or Working Group created that has >>> > representatives from the Government, Private Sector and Civil Society >>> that >>> > is dedicated to seeing improvements of Remote Participation and to >>> ensure >>> > the incorporation of critical elements that have been highlighted to >>> ensure >>> > improved remote participation processes. >>> > >>> > Because only limited funds are available for face- to >>> -face participation, >>> > this issue is crucially important to all stakeholders from all >>> > constituencies who are entitled to participate in the meetings, and >>> who wish >>> > to do so from a remote location. Meeting Chairs also play a central >>> role in >>> > creating a dynamic and inclusive environment that welcomes remote >>> > participation. >>> > >>> > We also encourage greater partnership between the governments and >>> private >>> > sector in enhancing remote participation. >>> > >>> > We have to move beyond advocacy to listing and creating tangible >>> outcomes to >>> > make improved, stable and sustainable remote participation a reality. >>> > >>> > There are regions around the world where transportation is extremely >>> > expensive and one such region is the Pacific which has 22 countries and >>> > territories. Remote participation was the only way that any of these >>> > countries could access the IGF. >>> > >>> > However there is room to improve processes and create an IGF culture >>> where >>> > remote participation is prioritised through exploring tested >>> methodology. >>> > >>> > The appropriate technical solutions need also to be explored as well >>> > bandwidth and ensuring that there is uninterrupted power supply and >>> > redundancy options where backup generators are critical to maintain a >>> > consistent and seamless flow. The MAG and IGF Secretariats should also >>> > ensure that there is sufficient and dedicated bandwidth capacity to >>> sustain >>> > the volume of traffic from remote participation. >>> > >>> > Aside from having the appropriate technical solutions and should also >>> > include the following:- >>> > >>> > · Outreach. >>> > >>> > · Mapping local and regional stakeholders; >>> > >>> > · Coordinating with people on the ground significantly before >>> the >>> > IGF in a series of strategic roll out. >>> > >>> > · Creation of Guidelines for Meeting Chairs and Moderators >>> whilst >>> > noting the limitations. >>> > >>> > · Identifying how the private sector, civil society and >>> governments >>> > can be better involved in the remote hubs etc. >>> > >>> > · Encourage greater collaboration between the IGF RPWG and >>> national, >>> > sub regional and regional IGFs. >>> > >>> > We also express our support of the IGF RPWG which published guidelines >>> and >>> > recommendations for remote participation and IGF 2011 WS-67 >>> participants >>> > prepared a draft of e-participation principles. >>> > >>> > Ends >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ________________________________ >>> > >>> > [1] http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/IGF_Virtual_Community >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Deirdre Williams >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Dear Sala, >>> >> I have been unavoidably out of contact all day, and am just catching >>> up >>> >> with reading the messages. >>> >> I am not clear which document you want me to send. >>> >> I have attached a word copy of my response yesterday, although from >>> >> reading the discussion that has perhaps been superseded during the >>> >> discussions today? >>> >> Please let me know as I would be delighted to help. >>> >> De >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 22 February 2012 14:15, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Deirdre, >>> >>> >>> >>> As you know our initial statement was used by the civil society >>> component >>> >>> of the CSTDWG as advised by Marilia. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you could please send it in a word document that would be super >>> >>> helpful and easy to put up on the Statement Workspace. We will also >>> be >>> >>> sending our Statement to the IGF Secretariat. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> >>> >>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>> Cell: +679 998 2851 <%2B679%20998%202851> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>> William >>> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> > >>> > Tweeter: @SalanietaT >>> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> > 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 >>> >>> >> !DSPAM:2676,4f461b5125626162813518! >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > Tweeter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Feb 29 23:48:41 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 05:48:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] How much is Facebook worth to the nation? Message-ID: http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/how-much-is-facebook-worth-to-the-nation/ In a link that Jovan has sent me the value of Facebook to the European economy is valued at € 15 billion. It's bad economics, I argue Aldo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t